Over many years Australia has gone to war with very little or no benefits.

People are left to suffer, families are killed and bombed, their countries are left in a mess and our troops are left damaged for the rest of their lives.

What will you be doing for the International Day of Peace this year on September 21st to send a message to governments worldwide that violence is no longer the answer?

People can find out more about the International Day of peace at - and the person behind it at: www.peaceoneday.org/

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

War occurs as a result of a political decision.
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. War is a highly structured social activity.
It cannot be sustained without a strong political
authority that can persuade people to risk their lives
for a purpose beyond themselves.

To a visitor from another planet, it would seem that the
modern world is obsessed with preparations for "defense"
(it's never called "offense").
Many countries spend more of their budgets for military
purposes than they do for education or medical care.

Altogether, the international military establishment
employs over an estimated 100 million people. World
military expenditures for military purposes has consumed
money in the trillions.

This represents a colossal diversion of funds from socially
useful goals. The example that I've given in the past
was that - a single hour's worth of these expenditures would
suffice to save, through immunisation, over 120,000 children
around the world who die each day from preventable infectious
diseases.

What will I be doing for the International Day of Peace?
Apart from going to Church in the Morning - the 21st
being a Sunday - and my son's Birthday. After the family
barbeque in the afternoon I will try to find the time to
write and send off a few letters to Canberra. Not sure
what that will achieve - but at least I would have done
something.

"What will you be doing for the International Day of Peace this year on September 21st to send a message to governments worldwide that violence is no longer the answer?"

Absolutely nothing.

Me neither, Is Mise.

>>"What will you be doing for the International Day of Peace this year on September 21st to send a message to governments worldwide that violence is no longer the answer?" Absolutely nothing.<<

For some reason, I feel strangely proud that both my parents put on military uniforms in 1940 at the age of 19, my father in the navy, mother in the air force, and spent the next five years fighting for what they believed was necessary to give me a life of peace and prosperity. I just hope that I would have had the courage to do the same, had the need arisen.

The world is not yet sufficiently mature to be able to rest easy, that our way of life will never again be threatened. For a start, we are still saddled with the misguided concepts at the heart of religion, which has been the tinder for innumerable conflicts over many centuries. Nor do we seem able to shed an ingrained acquisitiveness, that also feeds feelings of inequality and belligerence as we strive for what we perceive are our "rights".

Perhaps we never will. I certainly ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

Over many years Australia has gone to war with very little or no benefits.
NathanJ,
Due to war many of us have had it very good for a long time. Trouble is they're too stupid to realise it hence their idiotic idealism destroying it all again.

I know what I'll be doing that day....laughing.
As stated above, the Human Race is still a long way indeed from being peaceful, war and it's cousins will be with us for a while yet I'm afraid.
World Peace is a wonderful idea, and well worth working towards, but to achieve it we need to first remove it's progenitors, poverty, religion, inequality, and stupidity (lack of education).
Do all that and you may, MAY, have a shot at it, but I for one won't be holding my breath, our monkey genes need a damn good laundering if we're ever to know real peace.
Ever notice the correlation between education standards and religion, violence et. al.?
We almost made it to a truly secular society with education and opportunity for all, but the powers that be felt threatened by that and brought us instead the dumbing down of education, sensationalist media and multiculturalism, and war has festered and spread thereby, and they love it, the profits to be made, the controls they can introduce, and we the people bleed and die exactly the same as does our ancestors Dream of a better world.
Ave caesar! Morituri te salutamu

"Aut non."

To those who want to do nothing, you aren't very inspiring. When I saw the documentary, "Peace One Day" by the person who got the International Day of Peace of the ground - and how it all worked from start to finish - it was inspiring.

The film director was brought over from the U.K and many local people where I live (a very conservative area) gave him a huge round of applause.

Thank you to Foxy - for being the first to take something forward - as I know so many who know nothing about the International Day of Peace.

Politicians don't mind sending troops to war - as this means somebody else has to do the work - and politicians lives aren't put at risk - but what about moving towards a peaceful solution?

Will others show some brave leadership, like Foxy? A question I put to both of our Prime and Opposition leaders and others on this page.

Is there any point in preaching peace to those not fighting?
Surely if you want it so bad you'll be going off to war, any war, to persuade the fighters to stop?
Love-ins and Kumbayah will never achieve peace, they're nothing more than pointless feel-good exercises for the already (deserve to be) committed.
If you want an end to the atrocities, go talk to ISIS and their friends.
Hugging Fred Bloggs and Mrs McConneghy down at the grocers just won't cut it I'm afraid.

Men and women are born to struggle against the world, every day brings us into situations which have to be resolved, we get married and vow "It's you and me against the world my love", nobody has peace in their lives even in countries which are not at war.
What's missing is a an Anti War movement led by men and women with the backbone to hinder the war machine via mass civil disobedience,strikes and boycotts, we don't need sentimental Hippy dip nonsense like the day of peace.

Yep, we need the old Anti-Vietnam War troopers back out on the streets, but we've all got mortgages and grandkids these days.
These younger generations might come out, as long as you schedule any protests to slot between Neighbours and the Footy!
The powers that be have quite successfully shattered the social cohesion that permitted those gory glory days of yore.
Between multiculturalism and PC, and our mindless sensationalist media they've riven any sense of shared determination for change, plus with the dumbing down of education they've robbed our youth of any real sense of perspective, historical, social, or political.

Bruce,
They've really robbed our kids of a respect for those with a sense of higher purpose, it shouldn't matter if those elders see a higher purpose in religion or nation or art or whatever.
The day of peace, earth hour and such like are dedications to self image, "See how good I am" Tweeted into the ether then forgotten for another 364 days.

war happens because of the corrupt nature of mankind. When greed, power, lust and corruption is fed by ideology war is inevitable. Its the same cause of murder, abortion and other forms of violence. War will continue and increase until the Prince of Peace takes His rightful place. UNtil then everyone will be blaming everyone except themselves. Days such as International Day of Peace or white ribbon day normally start off well and end up being hijacked by all sorts of agendas. Its kind of like people protesting in support of Hamas. Quite hilarous really or sad!

Nathan J>> What will you be doing for the International Day of Peace?<<

Nathan I will be considering why 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world’s population do not want to go to war but we do.

Then I will ask myself who wants war....and for what reasons........then I will tell myself that European financiers and the corporations they control and the military industrial complex they use to gain their outcomes are behind most of the wars.

Then I will ask do the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% know and understand this............and the answer is no.

The day of peace, earth hour and such like are dedications to self image, "See how good I am" Tweeted into the ether then forgotten for another 364 days.

But these days don't have to be. They can be the start of something bigger. We can send a message to others and our governments we can all make a peaceful difference.

What I find strange however is that our Prime Minister Tony Abbott is sending troops overseas at present, at the same time when people like myself are recognising the International Day of Peace - and he is not - along with our Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

Both seem to agree violence is the solution, when I believe peace is the better way to go. Less death and destruction. Or am I alone on this?

There is a big difference, Nathan J, between belief and reality.

>>I believe peace is the better way to go. Less death and destruction. Or am I alone on this?<<

I believe that the 767 deaths on Australian roads so far this year are a massive waste of human potential. I believe that road safety is the way to go. Less death and destruction. Or am I alone in this?

More to the point, since you are talking about "peace" as a global objective, I believe that the 1.2 million traffic-related deaths on the world's roads every year are a massive waste of human potential. I believe that road safety is the way to go. Less death and destruction. Or am I alone in this?

It is all very well to sit in a corner and say "if only everyone thought the same way that I do", but there are many things that are outside your control. And human weakness is one of those things. Until and unless you rid the world of religious hatred and greed, for example, your ability to actually bring an end to war is severely limited.

But yours is the sort of activity that can give a certain type of person the warm glow of easy self-righteousness, so go ahead, knock yourself out.

I'm going to be repeating myself here but here goes
anyway.

A fundamental insight of sociology is that once people
no longer take their world for granted, but instead
understand the social authorship of their lives and
futures, they can become an irresistible force in
history.

Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save
it is a collective decision - and it is one that may well
be made within our lifetimes, hopefully. One thing that
scares the heck out of me is nuclear warfare. If more and
more nuclear weapons are built, and if more sophisticated
means of delivering them are devised, and if more and more
nations get control of these vile devices, then we surely
risk our own destruction.

However if ways can be found to reverse that process, then
perhaps we can divert unprecedented energy and resources to
the real problems that face us, problems such as poverty,
disease, overpopulation, and the devastation of our
natural environment.

History has shown us that through collective action,
ordinary people with few resources other than their own
determination were able to change a national consensus
for war to a national consensus for peace.

I'm talking about the Vietnam war that came to an end
largely as a result of the antiwar movement, a social
movement that consisted disproportionately of young
people, including many college students. When the
antiwar movement first challenged the war, it
received little support from politicians or the press
and its goals seemed almost hopeless. But the tide of
public opinion gradually began to shift. In the 1968
US Presidential primaries, an antiwar (Senator McCarthy)
backed by student volunteers did unexpectedly well
and President Johnson decided not to run for re-election.

From that point on, political debate on the war focused
not on how to stay in it, but on how to get out of it.

If a modern society goes to war, it is
not just because the leaders have opted for war, but
because the people have implicitly or explicitly done so
also - or at least, they have not opted for peace.

Pericles,

You talk as if I am the only person worldwide with a belief. I do however like to provide facts.

"Current methods of collecting data on those killed during war are plagued by biases that produce inaccuracies and underestimate the number of people actually killed. This can lead to widely varying casualty estimates. For example, in Iraq, a report published in the medical journal The Lancet in 2006 estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed by that time since the start of the war, a claim disputed by the White House, whose own estimates put the death toll at 30,000."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=5207645&page=1

Then of course there are the other deaths that flow on from wars such as medical related illness, mental health, starvation and other flow on effects that have a link to war related activities and daily well being.

People and governments worldwide (even in 2014) haven't found an intelligent, peaceful solution to our world and the problems that it faces at present.

Julia Gillard for example couldn't even vote yes (Australia abstained) in relation to Palestine in terms of the United Nations. No violence required at all for a potential solution there. Yet when we go to war, it is seen as fine. It has become so embedded within government as the only option we have.

In my view linking this matter to road deaths, or even some extreme United States websites which refer to falling out of bed death rates and links to war - is disrespectful to all people who have lost their lives of any nature.

Nathan J,
How would you go about preventing that evil that is being perfected in the middle east from spreading ?

Nathan and his friends are going to go to ISIS/IS/whoever and explain to them the ways of peace and friendship.

They have nothing to lose but their heads.

I hate war. Worse than war would have been a Nazi victory in WW2.

Not the least consequence of which would have been the forced use of Japanese typewriters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_typewriter

"Why is war always seen as the solution? What will you be doing for the International Day of Peace?"

Two questions, I don't believe the claim in the first is justifable based on the evidence. I'm not sure just how broad a coverage was intended however given that for almost any plausable group of nations in the modern era its clear that war is not always seen as the solution. The vast majority of disagreements between nations are not dealt with by war. Thats not to say that some wars are not entered into unwisely however the evidence is pretty clear that in the vast majority of cases war is not seen as the solution.

There are issues around the economics of defence/offence and diversion from domestic issues where war or the escalation of tension can be entered into for reasons with little to do with the claimed causes however taking an overly simplistic approach to that does little to address the times then war is the lesser of evils.

On the second question, pretty much what I do on most "international day of <insert cause here>".

R0bert

Foxy is going to tell us how to take the peace option. The people of Mosul would certainly want to know how this operates.

There is no peace without a fight for freedom.

Dear David F.,

I hate war as well.

However let us not forget that while the Nazis
have been pursued all over the world for
their crimes, the other half, the communist
criminals, were allowed to go free. They were,
in effect, given tacit permission to continue
the operation of their concentration camps,
to expand their draconian systems to include
psychiatric wards, thereby raising torture, suppression,
and murder to a science.

The fact that the process persisted was vividly disclosed
to the free world by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his
book, "The Gulag Archipelago."

Dear Foxy,

You are quite right. The Communist criminals have been allowed to go free. Although we may abhor war force is the only instrument by which we could have brought those criminals to trial. In applying such force even if effective many people would suffer. In bringing the Nazi criminals to Nuremberg millions of Germans were killed. Probably most of those were guilty of nothing more than being Germans.

One of the pacifist arguments is that by opposing an enemy with violence we become like them. Some time the only reasonable option is to oppose an enemy with violence and do our best not to become too much like them.

We are caught in a bind. To prevent war we must give some entity the power to act against those with aggressive intent who disregard the rights of humanity. Can you specify any such entity you would trust with such power?

Dear David F.,

The prospects for peace look much more encouraging
once we recognise that war and peace are really
opposite ends of a continuum, and that movement
along this continuum, in either direction, is the
result of social processes that develop and change
over time under the influence of government policies
and popular pressures.

In a world where all nations face a common threat
of direct or indirect involvement in nuclear warfare,
some reliable method is needed to limit conflict
among sovereign states. If we anticipate that some
benign and fair "world government" will take on the task,
we are likely to be disappointed: but if we look for
progress along that contimuum that runs from war to peace,
the prospects are much more encouraging.

Already, two vital emelents for international peace-making
are in place. The first as mentioned in my earlier posts
is the United Nations, which provides a forum for world
opinion and a mechanism for conflict resolution. The second
is a growing body of international law that specifies the
rights and obligations that nations have toward one another -
particularly with respect to aggression.

However, as I stated previously a major difficulty with
international peace-making, of course, is that compliance with
the resolutions of the United Nations and the rulings of its
World Court are voluntary, for no country is willing to
surrender its sovereignty to an international body.

Again, I'll repeat that the United Nations is most effective
when the superpowers are able to agree on a course of
action and mobilise their blocs to support it.
Even so, the organisation as stated earlier provided an
influential forum for world opinion, and, as previously
stated, while it does not always prevent war, it does help
make it less likely.

Dear Foxy,

I have no argument with you.

Dear David F.,

Thank You.

That means a great deal to me as I value your opinion.

Hi there FOXY...

As always your arguments are so well balanced, and so rational; so much so whenever I seek to disagree with you you're awfully hard to 'better' so to speak.

Reading your take on Vietnam, and I'm a Veteran, one often hears how the Americans and it's allies were beaten, thrown out of the country. When that's far from the truth. We lost the war in Martin Place, Bourke Street Melbourne, on the University campuses, and the many of the other places favoured for demonstrations. As they did in the US with all the demo's that occurred over there.

From a military perspective, it's very hard to prosecute a war with one arm behind your back, and the other holding back the mobs of demonstrators etc. The poor old yanks had to put up with that lousy traitor Jane FONDA parading around Hanoi and it's environs with NVA Generals all the while her countrymen were being slaughtered in and around Hue, Danang and many of the other major battle grounds.

And back home here the enemy were at work too; we were despairingly waiting for our mails to reach us, but they were held up by those rotten communist, criminal Wharfies who wouldn't load the Oz supply ship, the HMAS Japarit ! And that's the Labor Party for you, in those days - punish the soldier !

You often hear how good and brave the Aussie soldier is, that's quite true in the main, it's not true of all Aussies young men sadly. Some of the draft dodgers were NOT conscience objectors at all, they were just simply cowards.

I really don't know if we should've been in SV ? I was a regular, thus it was my duty to go where I was sent. But I must say, I really 'cringe' when I hear people exclaim how good and brave our young people are ? If it was anything like it was in the mid sixties and early seventies I wouldn't be quite so sure ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Yes, the United States stumbled into an obscure
but vicious conflict in Vietnam on behalf
of peasants who seemed largely indifferent to
the ourcome of the fighting and to America's
ideology. Ar first, American public opinion
gave patriotic support of the war. But as the
nation became more deeply involved, the Vietnam
war became a quagmire that drained its energy,
strength, credibility, treasure, and blood.

As casualties mounted and troops became more
demoralised, the war began to tear American
society apart, dividing neighbour from neighbour,
friend from friend, family members from one another.
Some sons volunteered for war, some were drafted,
some became conscientious objectors, some evaded
the draft by going into hiding or fleeing their
country.

Those who fought and those who refused to fight
branded each other with such names as traitor, and
coward. Altogether, more than 2 million young
Americans went to this unfamiliar place to fight
an unwanted war for uncertain ends. Some 57,000
of them were killed, and about 300,000 wounded.

Today there is now a general consensus that, somehow,
a terrible mistake was made. The memory of that mistake
we can only hope will place
informal social restraints on American leaders.
And that in the future there will be intense public
resistance to any prospect of "another Vietnam."

I guess we shall have to wait and see.

Andrew Wilkie the independent member for Denison claims John Howard should be grateful he hasn't been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder. From Andrew Wilkie's official web site.
`Former Prime Minister John Howard says he is embarrassed that no WMD was found in Iraq,’’ Mr Wilkie said. "He should instead feel deeply ashamed but grateful that he hasn’t been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder."

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century in Rwanda and Cambodia.

I would like to know how Howard feels now in light of the numbers of innocents killed on the bases of a couple of huge US lies. Who will ever forget Colin Powell at the UN in 2003. Shortly after Powell made a quick exit stage right, from the Bush Administration and I wounder why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html

Mr Wilkie is proving to be an excellent member, and a great judge of character. John Howard's character that is.

John Winston Howard will always be remembered as the Father of the Australian Gun Lobby, without his inspiration shooters would have been lost.
The .38 JWH pistol round was named in his honour.

Hello again FOXY...

That certainly seem to be the consensus, it was all a terrible mistake ? A mistake that cost many military lives, and countless civilian casualties as well. I just hope we don't go hurtling headlong into another protracted war with Iraq now ? So easy for politicians to thump their collective chests, as long as they themselves don't have to go there.

If you were to ask any Vet the way to eliminate ISIL once and for all, it would be, as is the popular expression now - 'boots on the ground'. You got to take the fight to them, not as they seem to be doing now ? Anyway, what would I know FOXY, I'm an old man now. Vietnam for me was 46 years ago, weapons, strategies and tactics vary considerably since those days, so I should consign myself and my opinions to a comfortable armchair and snore the remaining balance of my life away, in a pleasant reverie ?

Bush, Blair and Howard should be indicted for war crimes over Iraq. Then they would plead insanity and get off.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/could-john-howard-be-citizen-arrested-for-his-role-in-the-iraq-war

Foxy, all wars are unjust but The Vietnam War was a particularly nasty war. Again, a war justified by lies and more lies.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Everything is relative, everything has its
story and we all have our own life experiences
to go on. But that's what is so great about
this forum. We get to share our experiences
and in doing that we are able to reach an
even greater understanding of issues that we
may not have otherwise even thought about.
Keep up the good work - in sharing your views
with us.

Dear Paul,

Yes, the Vietnam war was dreadful.

We can only hope and trust that our choice in the
future will be to enhance the life
on the bright and lovely planet on which
billions of us share our adventure.

Dear o sung wu,

The US Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 specifies that the decision to go to war is one of the powers of Congress not the president. This was put in the Constitution to prevent the president from putting the country at war like the English king could. The presidents of the United States take an oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. In putting the US in an illegal war and carrying it on Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon violated their oath of office and were the rotten traitors - not Jane Fonda. She was merely opposing an illegal war which was her duty as a US citizen. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution which authorised the continuation of the war was based on lies orchestrated by Johnson.

My cousin Richard was a major in the US air force in the early phases of the Vietnamese war. He flew many raids over North Vietnam. When he became aware that most people in Vietnam did not support the war he turned against it. He told me how the laundry woman was caught coming on the base with grenades under her dress. He could not resign his commission, but he could refuse promotion to lt. colonel. After more than a specified time in grade a US officer is discharged from the army. That is how he got out.

A loyal citizen supports the government when it acts according to law and opposes the government when it violates the law. Jane Fonda was a loyal US citizen, and the US Constitution is still the law of the land. It is hard to prosecute a war with one arm tied behind your back, but the US had no business carrying on that war at all.

On John Howard, he was well known to 'The Left' in the 60' and 70's before entering Federal politics as a "shining light" for The Liberal Party, could even be described as a young Turk of the party and was seen as a future leader. What is not so well known about Howard was his strong support for both South African apartheid and the Vietnam War, like his hero and mentor, the coward who dodged military service in WWI and founded The Liberal Party 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies, Howard never volunteered for military service himself! No doubt the conservative who like to revise history will call me a liar, and paint a different picture of Howard! What is Abbott's record on military service?
p/s Some bright spark awarded Howard an OA, if Howard is a worthy recipient of such a high honor, then I could name a few who would be just a worthy, but they are behind bars.

Come now, Paul, Menzies was in the position of many other young men at the time.
His two brothers were serving and no one then (or now) should expect a family to risk all their sons, especially when the mother is beyond child bearing age.

Is Mise, Why not? For king and country, no excuses, Menzies was a royalist, he should have been first in line, he could have made the ultimate sacrifice, for the empire, over the top at the Somme! Definitely a white feather job was good old Bob. What about Howie, what was his excuse? We needed him in Vietnam, stopping those reds. What's Tone's track record, being a member of the CWA don't count. We need Tone in Iraq right now! Do I detect a trend with the conservative establishment and war service? I think I do.

I don't think there has ever been a Liberal PM (government) that has not put Australia into a war somewhere in the World. Abbott is following that well established tradition. However none can compare to the number one warmonger himself, George W Bush and the way he dodged national service in the US.

We should read "The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy"

There's a chapter on their gusto for WWI - to show that they were still the knights of old and could offer leadership in such a war.

The British aristocrats and upper-middles lost one fifth of their able bodied men and heirs in that disgusting war...an incredible toll!

It is interesting to read how those here analyze war criminals and propose death as their answer to PEACE.

Hi there DAVID F...

Thank you for your piece concerning the war in SV. As far as the historic political machinations of the war, I shall graciously defer to your (purported) greater knowledge.

It matters little to the average 'grunt', whether there was some alleged violation of the Congressional hierarchy of United States Government, perpetrated by the three Presidents you've cited herein, Messrs KENNEDY (Dem), JOHNSON (Dem) and NIXON (Rep). The fact is, our (Australian) government sent us over there, and as such it was our duty to go. That's the military way.

Perhaps morally the war may well have been wrong, perhaps we were all hoodwinked into taking part. But as soldiers, you do as you're told ? Soldiers cannot moralise, pontificate, or scrutinize the legalities or otherwise ? If your government sends you there, it's incumbent that you go !

I guess this part is extraordinarily difficult for those who've never earned the 'Queen's Shilling' to understand ! If you're in the Australian, Army, Navy or Air Force, you do as you're told, there's no room for debate !

Regarding the American traitor Jane FONDA. Many millions DID NOT agree with, and were vehemently antagonistic to the Vietnam War, and I respect that. But they DID NOT go to the heart of the enemy capital Hanoi, and give moral, psychological and emotional succour to the enemy chiefs. Particularly when her own countrymen, not 350kms, south, were being slaughtered in the steamy jungles of South Vietnam. Some were as young as 19 or 20 years, hardly old enough to shave ?

One particular news picture had Ms FONDA (traitor) posing with NVA Officers, beside an old French canon, within walking distance of the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison where many of her countrymen were being held in appalling conditions. Because of a self-imposed standard of propriety, I cannot add further comments concerning this treacherous individual.

It should be remembered DAVID F. Governments start wars. Soldiers merely fight and die in those wars ? Whether or not they're right or wrong !

Dear o sung wu,

To call a person a traitor means you are charging the person with giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The north Vietnamese were not our enemy since the US people had not determined that a state of war exists between the US and North Vietnam.

At the Nuremberg trials it was not allowed as an excuse for war crimes that a soldier was just doing as he was told and following orders. Soldiers are human beings with feelings.

Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in carrying on an illegal war did great harm to the Vietnamese and US peoples. Jane Fonda stood with the leaders of the North Vietnamese people. that partially made up for the crimes of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. They were the criminals - not Jane Fonda.

"If you can demonstrate that there is a link between business and peace and the growth of business, the conditions for doing business, then I think you get people's attention."

I agree.

There is an excellent website which highlights what one Australian business person has done in this area - and it is an inspiring story to read, where change is being made with no violence being involved.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2640325.htm

War has become very much like a case of State and Federal Politics where one party has to win over the other regardless of the impact on the day to day person - with the victims left behind. Its really to good to see some however in Australia doing more towards a better world, despite our current Federal government cutting our foreign aid budget recently.

Again violence over peace as a belief, and another belief of a war torn solution - neither are a fact, as their is no evidence they will give us a good outcome.

Dear o sung wu,

Soldiers and civilians suffer in wars regardless of what side they were on. However, those who protested the war on our side were exercising their rights as citizens of a democracy. When attempts to bring questions of legality and illegality cannot be resolved by law protests are in order. During the Vietnamese War there were attempts to bring the legality of the war into question through the courts. The US government managed to prevent all attempts to do so. One man was conscripted. His mother then brought suit against the government for conscripting her son to fight in an illegal war. The army discharged her son, and the government managed to get the suit dismissed by maintaining the woman no longer had a direct interest in the legality of the war. The other law suits were also dismissed by one means or another so the government prevented adjudication of the legality of the war. Protests against the criminals, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, for their crimes were called for. Jane Fonda stood by the victims of US criminal acts.

Dear O Sung Wu,

This is just for your information...

I read an article that the photo taken of Jan Fonda
sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun
targeting US planes laughing and clapping with
enemy soldiers in 1972 - haunted her throughout her
career.

It earned her the nickname "Hanoi Jane" and as a result
she was vilified by her critics every since.
The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter,
sitting on an enemy (anti aircraft gun) was a betrayal.

She acknowledged in her biography and she told Oprah Winfrey -

"I will go to my grave regretting that photograph of me.
It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility.
It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done.
It was just thoughtless."

Hi Nathan,

Yes, why can't people just get along - I rend my hanky and tear my hair every day at man's folly.

But then I remember the heroes at Kokoda and Tobruk, fighting against enemies who had to be confronted - ergo, they were fighting a just war, a war not of their choosing but one which they had to win.

Your alternative in those situations would be ..... ?

Joe

One can compare Marlene Dietrich and Jane Fonda. Marlene Dietrich is hated by many Germans. She comes from a family of German officers. During WW2 she did a lot for the US war effort. She sold war bonds, entertained Allied troops and did what she could to aid the fight against Germany. We applauded her efforts. The Germans didn't. Although many Germans now feel the Nazis were terrible they are still not willing to forgive Dietrich. Frankly I don't see a lot of difference between the two. There are many pictures of Dietrich hobnobbing with US soldiers of all ranks. Dietrich supported those who were fighting her country presumably because she thought her country was in the wrong. That is precisely what Jane Fonda did.

Hi David,

Yeah, Marlene Dietrich went to the US and built a huge movie career. Hitler offered her some high position, and the next day she took out American citizenship. Good woman.

As for Jane Fonda, Foxy, she was in North Vietnam, a peasant country, when it was under very heavy assault from the B52s. I hope I would have had the courage and decency to do the same. (Wow, you can get the boy out of the Left, but you can't easily get the Left out of the boy).

Joe

Good afternoon to you FOXY...

I'll respond to your piece rather than to that of DAVID F. simply because DAVID F. is particularly intractable with his views and opinions - besides I'm old and I'm tired, and I fought my war.

Funnily unless you served over there you'd never understand the true brutality, the immense hurt and the extreme sadness of that war. To say it was NOT a declared war, perhaps we should explain that odd anomaly to the 504 dead Aussies, the over half millions United States troops, and the millions of innocent souls slaughtered there. AND not forgetting the NVA and their own, over a million and a half casualties ? 'We all bleed when we're cut', enemy or not. Still, it wasn't a real war ? What a relief, their ghosts will feel infinitely better, secure in that knowledge ?

I will admit to everyone who reads this Forum, that it wasn't all that long ago FOXY, remarks not dissimilar to those attributed to DAVID F. would've produced a furious response in me. Now, I simply put it down to ignorance, it's for that reason, why I'll no longer discuss Vietnam with someone so blinkerd as this fellow.

One question I need to be answered please FOXY - Why is it I and my fellow Vietnam Veterans are (STILL) made to feel that we need to apologise for fighting that war ? Perhaps it's true, perhaps all Vietnam Veterans should be 'tried' as criminals ? NOT 'War' criminals, just criminals ?

Hi Foxy,

For all that, I've got some regrets. I've met quite a few Vietnamese refugees since the War, and I have to say that I'm appalled at the vindictive and vicious treatment that the Vietnamese government meted out to captured Vietnamese soldiers, in their 're-education' camps. Deliberately providing very salty rice, and very little water, for example. Sheer sadism.

One friend spent the years from 1975 to 1988 in the mountains in one such camp, planting the coffee that I used to sell at the markets. He escaped to Thailand and was able to come to Australia in about 1998. So 23 years to pay for being in the wrong army.

If I'd have known ........

Love,

Joe

Dear O Sung Wu,

I think that you've misunderstood the points David F.,
was making and you've taken them all personally.
Which is unfortunate. The Vietnam War was such an
emotive subject and it appears that it still is.

I remember my family members who served in Vietnam -
refused to talk about the war on their return. It was
simply too painful for them. Many still carry the scars
today. The brother of my best friend had a total mental
breakdown.
He was a medical officer in Vietnam and his mate's head
was blown off and ended up in his lap. He's now passed away -
but it was very difficult for his family to cope with his
suffering and mental anguish.

Take care.

I understand what you say FOXY when you refer to those scars and mental issues your family members and friends had. Some would've most assuredly come from the effects of being 'in country' ? Many more of those emotional scars, came from the Australian population itself, when we returned home ! And what a homecoming it was too ! I'm sorry FOXY, I just don't think you understand ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Of course no one will fully understand unless
they experienced what you guys did both over there
and when you came home. The best
anyone can do is empathize with all our hearts
and give you support - which is what I'm trying to do.

Dear Joe,

Thank you for sharing your experience and it's
great to see you posting again.
Missed you.

o sung wu,

Maybe some of this rings a bell?

<It only took 40 years. But finally, actress-turned-workout-specialist Jane Fonda has apologized for sitting on a Viet Cong anti-aircraft gun during her 1972 visit to North Vietnam. Fonda, who used her fame to push her radical leftism during her heyday, traveled to Hanoi in 1972 in solidarity with the Viet Cong. While there, she proceeded to blame the US for supposedly bombing a dike system, and did a series of radio broadcasts stating that US leaders were “war criminals.” Those broadcasts were replayed for American POWs being tortured by the Viet Cong. Later, when POWs spoke about their experiences of torture, Fonda would call them “hypocrites and liars,” stating, “These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed.” She explained that these POWs were “careerists and professional killers.”

Now, four decades removed, sitting in the lap of luxury, Fonda has decided that the pictures on the anti-aircraft gun were a mistake. Not the actual visit – she stands by that. “I did not, have not, and will not say that going to North Vietnam was a mistake,” she said. “I have apologized only for some of the things that I did there, but I am proud that I went.”

But when it comes to those gun photos, then she wishes she’d done something different: “Sitting on that gun in North Vietnam. I’ll go to my grave with that one.” Of course, as John Nolte of Big Hollywood points out, that’s “a step up from what we learned in Patricia Bosworth’s biography, ‘Jane Fonda,’ where the star reportedly said: ‘My biggest regret is I never got to f..k Che Guevara.”

She’s a deep human being, you see.>

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/jane-fonda-finally-apologizes/

Hi ONTHEBEACH Ms FONDA'S apology is a little too late for those of her countrymen who died there. To 99.9% of ALL Vets. she was and is a traitor. No amount of regret will ever heal the wounds of those men she betrayed.

My mother didn't agree with Australia's involvement in Vietnam, but she kept her feelings to herself without pointing an accusatory finger at those who simply did their duty by going over there. When people like DAVID F. declare the Vietnam war was not a war, because some politician failed to declare it a war, it shows what little understanding he and his kind have.

My final comment on this whole sorry mess - When we arrived home, I was absolutely dumbfounded at the hostility, the accusations and the complete lack of a 'welcome home', when we got in at mascot airport. I was totally confused, and very very hurt by the BASTARD Australian people, I never dreamed it possible. The only true welcome home I got personally, was from my beloved grandfather a WW 1 Veteran.

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote: "When people like DAVID F. declare the Vietnam war was not a war, because some politician failed to declare it a war, it shows what little understanding he and his kind have."

The Vietnamese War was a very real war. All wars where people kill and are killed are real. However, it was not a war legal under US law, and no US citizen is obligated to support an illegal act of the US government. I understand that fact.

I have great sympathy for the Vietnamese people who suffered under that war and for the sufferings of the soldiers on both sides.

"he and his kind". What are me and my kind? There are those who drag their country into war for no good reason. I regard it as the duty of a citizen in a democratic country to oppose those monsters.

o sung wu,

Jane Fonda was born into wealth and privilege and to top it off she was an extremely attractive young woman when arguably the positive stereotyping of women was at its highest. She could have shot a man point blank in front of the Commissioner of Police and been excused for it. Few could comprehend the path that is cleared by being a beautiful, young and rich woman, with dad and all of his contacts to ease her path even if she made a complete *rse of herself.

I don't imagine that many would ever have criticised her for her opposition to Vietnam, and she could have achieved much more, if she hadn't been a far left attention-seeking jackass.

I don't say she was courageous either. In her privileged position extremism was easy. What risks did she run, really? It was not as though she could lose her income, be tossed out into the street or be without the finest lawyers money could buy.

She isn't the first young attractive woman from a privileged background to be oppositional against authority and buck the system. Much safer for her to do it of course.

I don't think that Jane Fonda was ever capable of comprehending (and feeling) how cruel she was being to those who served, or came home damaged and the families who lost loved ones. Maybe to someone rich, famous and privileged, soldiers and their wives are non-people, collateral damage eh Jane?

She has discovered religion now I believe. Move over, God!

Jane Fonda is a very flawed individual. She is the product of wealth and privilege and quite possibly not especially aware of the sufferings of ordinary people.

However, she did not put the US in Vietnam. She did not lie about why we were there. She did not orchestrate the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. She did not send troops to kill and be killed.

It was wrong to attack in any way the soldiers coming back from Vietnam. They were not responsible for the war either.

If we want to have peace we must focus on what leads us into war and prevent it from happening where it can be avoided. How did the Vietnamese War happen? Did it have to happen? Could it have been avoided?

I think the answer to the last two questions are no and yes. President Eisenhower was subject to pressures to get the US into war in Vietnam. He knew what war was, saw no reason for the US to get involved in a land war on the Asian continent and resisted those pressures.

The presidents who succeeded him were not as wise or caring as Eisenhower. They got the US in an unnecessary war in which many suffered. It seems to me that learning how and why it happened and using that knowledge to keep it from happening again is a much more worthwhile enterprise than discussing the failings of Jane Fonda.

Hi Nathan,

Another day, another beheading. But it couldn't have been done by Muslims because Islam is a religion of peace. At least, some bits of it.

So what were the al-Qa'ida and ISIS people doing on September 21, the International Day of Peace ? i.e. last Sunday ?

After their Peace parade, I think they went back to attacking Kurdish villages in Syria, killing men and enslaving women, driving 130,000 desperate people over the Turkish border.

All in a day's work :)

Joe

As one who was involved in the Vietnam War protests of the 1970's. I can say I never considered those sent to fight there, be they regular army, or conscripts, were in anyway responsible for the war, that was the responsibility of polititions on our side. It was always some kind of phony civil war, between a unpopular and corrupt regime in the south, propped up by the US, and the popular nationalists led by Ho Chi Minh. It had its origins in post WWII and the ensuing cold war. Like so many of these wars, in which the US involves themselves, the motives are about power and influence but cloaked in the altruistic motives of freedom and democracy. You can't sell those real motives, at home but you can sell F&D. The problem with Vietnam was the public at first, like most wars were fully supportive, but as it dragged on with no clear objectives, and no resolution in sight, only a mounting death toll, popular support evaporated. In 1965 only 25% of Americans opposed the war, by 1973 that figure had grown to about 60%. The war resulted in the deaths of over 58,000 American, 500 Australians and between 1 and 3 million Vietnamese. Who were the war criminals, all wars have their criminals, so who were the Vietnam War criminals?

davidf,

You ask, "If we want to have peace we must focus on what leads us into war and prevent it from happening where it can be avoided. How did the Vietnamese War happen? Did it have to happen? Could it have been avoided?"

It could have been avoided if we, the Allies, had stuck by our Vietnamese friends in the war against the Japanese, but we chose to take Churchill's advice and return the Colonial powers to their pre-war positions of authority and in this instance it was the French to power in Vietnam.

That's how it happened, it didn't have to happen and it could have ben avoided.

Dear Is Mise,

I agree.

Dear David F.,

My apologies for returning to the subject of
Jane Fonda. However I do feel that the lady has
been greatly maligned by so many Right-Wing
Warriors, blogs, and internet sites, magazines
et cetera. So many
false accusations have surfaced and been believed -
especially from conservative organisations who
feel they need to combat the "radical left."

Here are two links that may be of interest to those
who really want to know the truth, rather than the
hype of that hisotrical period:

http://www.janefonda.com/the-truth-about-my-trip-to-hanoi/

http://www.Irb.co.uk/v27/n22/rick-perlstein/operation-barbarella

Gosh, you mean that Jane Fonda's apology on the Barbara Walters Show 1988 for her 'thoughtless and careless' behaviour was entirely unnecessary?

Jane Fonda is due some sympathy for the family environment she grew up in. However she is responsible for her decisions as an adult and despite the excellent advice and counsel that was available to her.

Re-writing history is very popular among the leftists, most of whom would never see the hypocrisy and cruel affront of Jane Fonda years later wearing a super-large 'Vietnam Veterans Against War' badge. She was worried about the troops, yeah, right!

Amazing what wealthy women celebrities with beautiful evenly balanced features and a super body can get away with.

Some people will believe anything.

Not much that we can do about that,
especially in the jungle of the internet.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/07/jane-fonda-cia-operative-vietnam

cont'd ...

And talking about actors (celebrities)
and what they could get away with:

1) Ronald Reagon (Governor of California.
President of the US).

2) Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor of California).

3) Clint Eastwood (Mayor of Carmel).

4) Shirley Temple Black (California State Senate)

5) George Murphy (US Senator)

6) Glenda Jackson (Member of Parliament - UK).

7) Sonny Bono (US Rep. 44th District California).

To name just a few.

Instead of talking about Jane Fonda - what I am goint to is show what many groups are doing worldwide in a non violent way towards world peace.

"To solve the problem of organising world peace we must establish world law and order" Arthur Henderson.

The United Nations is therefore one excellent organisation to go with in many ways in that regard.

I believe however to balance that out, more local action is needed.

Visit: http://www.peacedirect.org/.

This group undertakes a range of activities in poorer countries that have serious problems (like Zimbabwe) for example - with some fantastic initiatives that go alongside these to generate world peace.

Its good to see people doing things that do not involve guns or weapons - but can show people that by working together, they can "as a community" work towards a better future.

Hi Nathan,

It's very brave of you, to come back onto OLO once you've stirred up such a hornet's nest :)

Yes, if we could only persuade ISIS to attend UN meetings and agree to move towards a peaceful resolution of their issues, the world might be a more peaceful place for all.

Some may carp and say that total world domination by ISIS is not what they would really like, but as you may suggest, if ISIS could argue its case persuasively enough, every country would be able to see the value of its requests.

Perhaps you could start up a Facebook page promoting that ?

Joe

Nathan,

Before promoting or signing up for any charity that thrusts its begging bowl before you, especially on the Net, why not check with either of these independent charity checkers?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/registerhomepage.aspx

I haven't bothered to search for the crew you mentioned and I have no idea what they are like. However, if a charity does not appear or if it is poorly rated, that should indicate something to you. Yes, I know, all had to start somewhere etc., however most donors would like to see actual, audited results, not their $$ being absorbed in directors' remuneration and promotion.

It would be a good practice if anyone promoting a charity that is not well known could also give the listing in one of the charity checkers.

I'm not too concerned with the actions of Jane Fonda in Vietnam. Unfortunate two of the twentieth centuries most notorious mass murderers, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, went to their graves without being held to account for the massive war crimes they orchestrated in Vietnam. Sitting on a gun can't compare to ordering the destruction of tens of thousands of civilians. Johnson and Nixon were right up there with Hitler and Stalin when it came to mass murder.

"According to the US Senate sub-committee on refugees, from March 1968 to March 1972, in excess of 3 million civilians were killed, wounded or made homeless. During this same period, most of which coincides with Kissinger's role as NSA to the president, the US dropped nearly 4.5 million tons of high explosive on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia -- more than double the tonnage dropped during the whole of the second world war... These are war crimes under the 1957 Geneva Conventions Act."

Paul,

An American bomber pilot that I knew well said that he and his friends had to fly a set number of missions over Vietnam and that thy mostly dropped their bombs on uninhabited jungle and went back for another load.
That's probably one of the reasons why so many bombs were dropped and so few people killed for the tonnage dropped.

Onthebeach,

I'm skeptical of these types of sites as their assessment often has a poor basis to it. For example:

"But what if the problem you're trying to solve is in the middle of a war zone? Doctors Without Borders Executive Director Sophie Delaunay says she's leery about a system that would grade a nonprofit based on its results.

I mean, it really depends on how they're going to use their results and what is their own understanding of what they're trying to analyze,"

Charity Navigator won't evaluate themselves - giving you a list of excuses - excludes some charities, have selective criteria, a paid CEO and staff, sells products and takes donations. Independence?

People on this page reply of their own choice - that is what a free democratic country is about. Our democratic voting rights are taken by many for granted in Australia.

I feel very strongly about peace - being vegetarian and don't want any type of violence in principle.

There are plenty of people and groups out there helping others in war torn and poor countries suffering from the horrible 'violence' factors that are thrust upon them.

NathanJ,

There are other government and independent sites where you can check a charity or not-for-profit.

If you cannot find information like that anywhere on what do you base your encouragement for others to follow your recommendation?

onthebeach,

All sites that assess charities can and do have assumptions with them. For example some charities receive millions of dollars in government funding - whilst others get nothing and are yet assessed on the same basis.

If people want to access a website to find out more about a charity - that is fine - but don't judge a book by its cover. I volunteer with three not for profit groups - and we don't get millions of dollars from anyone.

The people with the most power, who can make a real difference worldwide are the ones I want to question - and that is government.

War is not always seen as the solution. The 49th parallel which makes up most of the boundary between the US and Canada was settled by peaceful negotiation between the two countries. Unlike the US where the ending of slavery was effected by a great war England and Brazil ended slavery peacefully. Czechoslovakia broke up into the Czech and Slovak Republics peacefully.

Settling international differences peacefully is not as dramatic or noteworthy as going to war, but it has happened many times.

Sometimes my critical faculties are asleep, and I accept propositions, questions or statements without thinking.

This thread assumes that war is always seen as the solution. It is not always seen as the solution.

david f,

I agree with what you have just said. I would like peaceful outcomes all of the time. It's the best option.

However my point is that 'violence' has become so embedded in our society - it is seen as 'normal' or 'what happens' - when it should be seen as something (we) in principle worldwide should not support, but this of course requires research, thought, discussion, negotiation, working together and having to address the many years of embedded hatred that exists between some living in Israel and Palestine for example.

'Embedded violence' like child abuse, drunken behavior, sexual assault, school bullying, domestic violence, racial hatred, terrorism and gun shootings....... I could go on.

People can switch off their television sets when they don't want to hear or see these stories - but they are still out there and we as a community (very nicely) need to say no to violence in all forms.

We can't just go into a 'war torn mode' every time something negative occurs against the western world - our governments need to help out where possible - in a non violent way.

NathanJ,

There is no 'embedded violence' in Australia unless you are referring to the experiences of asylum seekers and migrants from war-torn and violent cultures. Are you criticising the importation of violent cultures, which includes the political corruption that coexists in such countries?

If so, you could be referring to Rotherham in the UK and yes, there are definitely lessons there for Australian multiculturalists.

Dear Nathan,

You wrote: "However my point is that 'violence' has become so embedded in our society - it is seen as 'normal' or 'what happens' - when it should be seen as something (we) in principle worldwide should not support, but this of course requires research, thought, discussion, negotiation, working together and having to address the many years of embedded hatred that exists between some living in Israel and Palestine for example."

There has not been many years of embedded hatred between Israelis and Palestinians. It has been brought about by the English government issuing the Balfour declaration in 1917 without consulting the wishes of the people who were living in Palestine. At the same time the British government was making contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews to get their support in WW1. This is the same Lord Balfour who kept Jews fleeing czarist persecution out of England. There was a series of actions by the English government and others which resulted in the animosity which now exists.

How to make governments aware of the consequences of their acts and care about the consequences is a great problem. Prevention is better than cure, and I think the current conflict could have been prevented. Is Mise has suggested one means by which the Vietnamese War could have been prevented. There were others.

I disagree that the problem is violence. I think most people prefer peaceful means of conflict resolution. I think the problem is that powerful entities such as government do not adequately consider the consequences of their acts, and violence can result.

There is embedded violence. I know some people don't want to realise that, and some go back to selective periods of the past to justify the horrid actions of today - but that is an excuse - not a solution.

I was speaking to a person (at a body mind and psychic expo) and saw a woman from a religion there (I think it was like Sikhism). I am not of that regligion - but we both agreed, that unless we stop killing animals (in terms of eating) we will not stop killing in principle.

There will be a lot of people on this page who will no doubt disagree as around 95-98% of Australian citizens are meat eating people.

However with meat - other people have to do the work - and people may be interested to know - my dad used to work in a meatworks. Many people find this strange and in my year 12 school magazine my headline was I told I would run an insect welfare shelter.

When I decided to go vegetarian (as a school project) my mum dumped a plate of meat in front of me and demanded I eat it. This is violence.

So to suggest there is no form of violence in Australia or elsewhere is not correct and we need to do what ever we can to stop that - but you don't achieve that through more violence, that simply adds the problem - and the cycle and telling of 'stories' will continue to go on... but for how long do we keep doing this? I'm interested in what we can do 'today' - not things from 1917.

Dear Nathsn,

You wrote: "So to suggest there is no form of violence in Australia or elsewhere is not correct and we need to do what ever we can to stop that - but you don't achieve that through more violence, that simply adds the problem - and the cycle and telling of 'stories' will continue to go on... but for how long do we keep doing this? I'm interested in what we can do 'today' - not things from 1917."

Certainly, to suggest there is no form of violence in Australia or elsewhere is incorrect. However, nobody on this thread has suggested that. To say that someone has done so is a false statement as is your statement implying war is always seen as the solution. Our society embodies both violence and non-violence. I expect it will continue to do so.

From a false premise one can expect a false conclusion.

Dear Nathan,

I take back what I said that no one on this string made the statement that there is no embedded violence in Australian society. Some one did make that statement. There is a great deal of violence embedded in this society. Our police and our armed forces are trained in the use of violence. Sometimes violence is the least bad of the alternatives, and then we need those who are trained to use it. However, it should not be used if there are less bad alternatives.

Nathan/David,

This is all avoiding the issue. Are there or are there not 'just wars' ? Wars that have to be fought, because an aggressor has forced itself on an otherwise peaceful country ?

Should we have resisted the Japanese ? Should the allies in WW 2 have resisted, and eventually defeated, the Nazis ?

For argument's sake, if New Zealand unleashed its awesome military might against Australia, should we just let them roll over us ? Yes, they may only want our sheep, but should we do nothing ?

Yes, there are unjust wars. But very often, even in those cases, there is also an unaggressive party - should they just roll over and take whatever an aggressor deals out ?

How sweet it would be if there were no wars, and therefore no need to resist an aggressor. How holy one must feel to be able to say, "all war is bad", and just do nothing. Or like so many Brits at the beginning of the Second world War, say that all war is bad, they are non-violent, yada yada, and just piss off to the US.

If a country is attacked for no reason, then it is just for it to carry out a war to defend itself and liberate its own territory. In other words, it carries out a just war.

Period. Now let's move on.

Joe

Was the UN just in resisting the North Korean invasion of South Korea?

My Daewoo Matiz says that it was.

Dear Loudmouth,

Whether a war is just depends on definition. Some just war theorists will maintain any atrocities are justified if the cause is just. Some just war theorists have thought that spreading Christianity or any other religion or ideology is a just cause.

By the foregoing ISIS can maintain they are fighting a just war since the spreading of their brand of Islam is a just cause.

Other just war theorists are more concerned with the conduct of a war. If an army fighting a just war commits atrocities just as slaughtering prisoners than they are no longer fighting a just war.

Most of us on this list probably think our side in WW2 was just. However, the Finns fought on the German's side because they regarded the Soviet acts of aggression against them as unjust. Therefore in their eyes they were fighting a just war. In our eyes we were also fighting a just war. Whether a war is just depends on definition.

Loudmouth,

My point and aim in terms that in using the word 'embedded' was that there are so many elements in our society, that we in the (western world) in particular just assume. That is, that if it is good for us, then it must be good for everyone and everything else.

But what we don't see are the victims, and what they go through. War and violence is something we don't see because it is in so many ways 'invisible' - out of sight, out of mind.

Unless of course we were to face a war in Australia, which would not be tolerated - as it is not 'embedded' here or accepted by others - as Australia would not see it good for any reason.

People are trying to do things in a non violent format in this day and age to get change. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/02/16/xenophon-awaits-deportation-malaysia

However when trying to do this, they are attacked using patronising comments from some on the site: "The Xenophon Show' is simply for publicity, now that the election has been called, free air time for an independent which otherwise would have had to dig out from his own pocket."

These types of cheap lines, also get thrown at our current prime minister, and at our two previous Labor prime ministers - wasting time when we can be doing more in so many areas including international affairs.

david f, "There is a great deal of violence embedded in this society. Our police and our armed forces are trained in the use of violence."

They are there to keep the peace. Without them there would be violence that would become embedded fast.

Number of Americans killed in the Korean War: 36,000
Number of Americans wounded in the Korean War: 105,000
Number of South Koreans killed in the Korean War: 415,000
Number of South Koreans wounded in the Korean War: 429,000
Estimated number of Chinese and North Koreans killed in the Korean War: 1,500,000

Was the UN just in resisting the North Korean invasion of South Korea?

My Daewoo Matiz says that it was.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 26 September 2014 11:17:26 PM

Is Mise I'm sure you don't mean that. Although there are many in the developed world who believe the deaths of millions in the third world is inconsequential, and even necessary as long as their comfortable lifestyle is maintained. others are simply ambivalent to the carnage, for very much the same reasons.

David/Nathan,

Mealy-mouthed bullsh!t.

What sort of fascist apologist would ever suggest that ISIS is fighting a just war, that they have been aggressed against ?

Yes, of course, there are theorists and theorists and you can use them all you like to justify your apologetics.

But the fact remains that, once a non-aggressive country is attacked, it has the right, really the duty, to defend itself, to protect its inhabitants from further aggression.

Do you want to play around with that ?

Joe

Paul,

Yes.

What's your point ? Because an aggressor loses more troops, that therefore they are somehow the injured party ? I think they call that 'consequentialism'.

If you don't want casualties, don't start a war, don't INTEND to start a war, because the attacked party is quite within its rights to gather its allies and inflict more damage on your boys.

If you don't want unintended consequences, don't start a war. If only Nathan could grasp that.

Joe

Paul,

I do mean that the UN was justified in resisting the invasion of South Korea and history has shewn that it was just.
Of course I may be a bit biased, I just received an invitation from the Republic of Korea Embassy to an on board luncheon on the ROKS "CHOIYOUNG", being a Korean War veteran.

I still wear the Blue Beret, with pride, on appropriate occasions.

Is Mise, I am pleased that you were a survivor of war and can wear your Blue Beret, with pride. I detest everything about war, the senseless death and destruction that it brings to both non-combatants and combatants alike. Given the present and past level of human development war will continue indefinitely. We may have advanced in so many areas of human endeavor, modern science and technology makes the achievements of yesteryear seem rather minuscule, but when it comes to our personal relationships with each other we seem to have advanced little over the centuries.

<<Because an aggressor loses more troops, that therefore they are somehow the injured party?>> Joe, call it what you like, 36,000 Americans were killed in Korea, that's 36,000 too many by my way of thinking. Clearly Japan was an aggressor in WWII, Australia was an aggressor in Vietnam, some find that an uncomfortable truth about Australia, but its a fact. Regardless of who is the aggressor or who is not, is immaterial, when it comes to those killed, people died for no good reason in both of those wars and in all other wars.
I fully understand what you say <<But the fact remains that, once a non-aggressive country is attacked, it has the right, really the duty, to defend itself, to protect its inhabitants from further aggression.>> That is obvious, just as obvious as if you were walking down the street minding your own business and a complete stranger attacked you from out of the blue. However in many wars its not so clear cut as to who is the aggressor and who is the aggressed. Maybe the only ones who have the right to wage war are those with god on their side.

Paul,

Do you detest the prosperity and freedom that the Koreans south of the DMZ enjoy?

Have a look at Google Earth and see the difference between the two parts of Korea, the night views are especially illuminating (pun intended).

Is Mise, your misunderstanding what I am saying. "The ends justify the means". No matter how good the end outcome is, in this case freedom for South Koreans, relative to North Koreans, which is very desirable and very good. That outcome in itself does not make the means used, in this case war, good also. The outcome is good, but the means is bad, given human nature as it was and still is, could the same good outcome be achieved without bad war, probably not. There is no relationship good or bad between, means and outcome in my opinion, others could argue differently. Obviously, a bad means giving a good outcome is more desirable than a bad means with a bad outcome, but the best result is achieved with a good means which results in a good outcome.

Paul,

There was no other way of stopping North Korea other than killing North Koreans, just as in Melbourne a few days ago the stabbed policeman had no alternative to killing his assailant, therefore it was good that he was armed likewise it was good that the UN came to the assistance of South Korea. It was a good war and the continued aggressive attitude of the North and the way that they treat their people shews that it was a good war.

Paul1405, "Australia was an aggressor in Vietnam"

Oh no Australia wasn't! How quick you are to damn Australia and ll so unnecessary.

In the North, the nationalists had been taken over by the Communists well back, in the Fort Indochina War. The NLF, communists supported by China (whom Vietnam had been fighting for 2,000 years!) and with Russian weapons were the aggressors who moved South and there is plenty of evidence of the villainous acts of cruelty and murder they waged against elected leaders who didn't see things their way, at local level especially.

While I disagree with Australia's involvement in Vietnam (and the US role too), when the US and Australia became involved it was a clear case of communist takeover of north and south and not nationalists as you believe.

It was the naivete of the US in supporting Diem, a bad SOB, that resulted in the inevitable communist takeover of the South. Contrary to what US hating leftists believe, and they do re-write history, the US didn't have any reasons for reluctantly supporting Diem apart from the appearance that he was the best available out of even more corrupt politicians.

That should be FIRST Indochina War.

Paul1405, I sincerely hope you are reassured and thankful to know that Australia was not the aggressor in Vietnam.

Re the argument about Vietnam and the involvement of the US, Australia and China. Those of you arguing for the 'justness' of this dreadful war do understand how that came about don't you? Why and how the Vietnamese Nationalists sought help from communist China?

That was a wholly avoidable war started with lies after serious betrayal. The horrors visited upon both the Vietnamese and the soldiers from the US and Australia lie squarely with the presidents of the US and the PM of Australia.

Just like the invasion of Iraq and the horrors and destruction that has followed this. Abbott is now all ready for the glory of being a 'war' PM and has no concept or conscience of what he is committing Australian fighting men and women to. But then, this government has no concept of what the ADF is for in the first place. I challenge any member of this cabinet, including members of the waffily, useless ALP to commit one of their own children to service.

I have soldiers and officers over 4 generations in my family, including 2 sons. I'm not an airy fairy 'pacifist'. The results of war are real and terrible on those fighting and the citizens in a war-zone, even during so-called 'just' wars, so before committing a nation's soldiers, it must be absolutely clear the sacrifices are justified and this needs to be explained to the nation. Australia does not need to be the first with soldiers on the ground. In actual fact, the ONLY Western nation to do so.

OTB,

During the early part of the Vietnam war I was in the happy position of putting most captured weapons through a process that eliminated any lurgies that might have been in or under the woodwork, a good cooking in the Trichloroethylene tank. This stuff plus the heat removed oils, greases and just about everything else.
The weapons were then stripped, cleaned internally, the woodwork treated with raw linseed oil and then they were reassembled and returned to Ordnance.
During the first year of our involvement the only captured weapons that I handled were bolt action rifles, British, French and Japanese of WW II and earlier vintage, US .30/06 Garands, M1 Carbines and Thompson Sub-machine guns all probably supplied by the US in WW II; all were well worn and one Garand was so worn that someone had tried to restore some accuracy by drilling out the rifling for about three inches at the muzzle. The barrel of this rifle was so worn that a .30 calibre bullet could be pushed through the barrel by hand. Years of wet conditions had swelled most of the woodwork to well over its manufactured size.

Is Mise,

Thanks. I don't doubt that, the (communist led) NLF was encouraging insurrection in the south and many were armed with cached weapons. Supply problems, both north and south.

Yvonne,

You might like to romance the NLF as nationalist freedom fighters, but they were far from that, as evidenced by the death squads that killed local officials in the south.

Maybe you should start with ordinary old Wikipedia and remove the eye patch before awarding all blame to the US and Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for this thread. In response to your wise reflections, here is a plea for peace and love from ISIL, (care of The Guardian, that right-wing rag):

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,” said al-Adnani.

“Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling. Both of them are disbelievers.”

Actually, I can't believe that any Muslim could say this, because after all, Islam is a religion of peace.

Another item in the newspapers: Philip Adams gave us the full depths of his understanding yesterday in his comments about ISIL, that Saudi Arabia also carries out beheadings: forty or more this year, so nyah nyah, by implication ISIL can't be that bad. So how many do you reckon ISIL has carried out in the past week ? Of children, let's say ? Stupid man.

On the other hand, what's the common basis of such beheadings ? Islam ? Shari'a ? Being Arab ? Being reactionary ?

Or all of the above ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

ISIS has been designated as a foreign terrorist
organisation in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Indonesia and
Saudi Arabia and has also been described by the
UN's and the Western and Middle Eastern media as
a terrorist group and as a fundamentalist and
extremist organisation.

Much of their murderous rampage has parallels with
mediaeval horrors and it is quite difficult to
imagine a strategy that would be effective against
individuals so depraved.

This is one of the most complex regions in the world,
with the instability of Iraq and the dark consequences
of Syria's civil war.

However lumping this terrorist organisation with the
Muslim religion smacks of a narrow set of attitudes.
Muslims are not one homogenous group. And blaming any
religion for the actions of fundamentalists and
extremists is not an intelligent argument - even
though it seems to have become a dreary and undeviating
routine on this forum of late.

Foxy,

The "Muslim Manifesto" is the Koran, and in it Allah through his final prophet, Muhammad, has told the world how it should behave and believe; if you do not follow Allah's will then you can and ought to be persecuted and, if possible, eradicated.
The recent be-headings are only examples of devout Muslims following the will of Allah.

Foxy my darling,

Good to hear from you !

Forgive me, but if ISIL goes into 'battle' (i.e. beheading children), under a flag which says in Arabic "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet", and the killers yell out "Allah is Great !" when they kill someone, being old and mentally decrepit, I leap to the hasty conclusion that they may be Muslim, at least in their own minds.

When they cite the Koran, the book of Islam, I have this totally unfounded notion, I don't know where from, that they might be Muslims, at least as they see it.

When they implement Shari'a law, as ordained by many kadis and imams and Muslim authorities around the world, albeit in perhaps a fairly drastic form, then I suppose it's natural for me to fall into the error of thinking that they may be Muslims. I don't know why but there you go.

Perhaps, like most 'holy' books, there are good patches and brutal, vicious, vile patches. Perhaps good Muslims focus on the good parts, while 'mistaken' Muslims, or people who are not actually Muslims at all, focus on other parts the books.

After all, Islam is a religion of peace. Apart from the beheadings :)

And the torture and murder of women who are civil rights lawyers.

Love,

Joe

Hi there JOE aka LOUDMOUTH...

It's wrong to lump these murderous ISIL terrorists amongst the ranks of ordinary peaceful Muslims. Is It ? At the risk of me being accused as having a narrow set of attitudes, I would respectfully submit that every second word that emerges from the mouths of these creatures, contain some reference to Allah, Sharia law or Islamic canonical precepts. So how can they be marginalised or segregated from Islam ?

There's no doubt there are many peaceful Muslim folk living quietly all around the world, and I would think they have little truck with ISIL or anyone else identifying with ISIL. Nevertheless, the Islamic faith is at the root of all ISIL ideology and doctrinal teachings, as such it's up to the Muslim community themselves, to at least assist in bringing these murderers to account.

Otherwise, the complete Muslim world will be (regrettably) identified as being sympathetic to, and to provide succour to this, and any other terrorist groups, that purport to act pursuant to the Doctrines of the entire Islamic religion.

Rightly or wrongly that would be a real perversion, in all attempts of maintaining an enduring world peace, certainly throughout the very unsettled regions of the Middle East.

Hi O Sung Wu,

Yes, I agree: but like every holy book, perhaps the Koran contains contradictory passages (to say the least). Far from being the actual word of god, some of it was written - like all holy books - much later than the time of Muhammad, and even the parts inspired by Muhammad differed according to when he wrote it (oops, when he 'received' it).

So that the early bits, when he had little power, are conciliatory, peaceable and more acceptable, while the later bits, when he and his successors were rampaging through the entire Middle East, contain elements of violence and butchery.

I wonder where the bits about 'tekkiah', that it's right to lie and cheat when you have to, with un-believers, come in ?

Joe

Come now, boys....take a breather from walking in lock-step with govt's nasty Islam agenda.

We've got our own trainee despot doing deals with a former Khmer Rouge leader...he even sips champagne with him after completing his grrrrubby deal.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/a-toast-to-scott-morrison-for-paying-a-war-criminal-40-million-to-house-refugees-in-abject-poverty-20140928-10n7uh.html

"Hun Sen, this is your life!

Let's have a little chat about Scotty's new BFF Hun Sen. You know, the former Khmer Rogue leader? That one.

For a start, he's been Prime Minister of Cambodia for 25 years. You'd assume from that sort of length of time that he was a dictator, right? But no: as Morrison has repeatedly assured us, Cambodia's a democratic country, and Hun has just happened to have been returned time and time again.

Others disagree, like Amnesty International and the United Nations: the first accused him of war crimes and of torturing prisoners and political opponents, and the latter demanded he step down after they monitored Cambodia's elections and found them laughably corrupt. Hun decided not to worry about either."

"So, to recap: your government is chuffed to deal with a war criminal presiding over a dictatorship in order to send people to one of the most poverty-stricken regions on the planet. Oh, and we've just paid said war criminal $40 million to sweeten the deal - money which will no doubt be used wisely, right?"

There's a few papagraphs about the new Aussie sport of denigrating Australian Muslims in that article...since it's also the favourite sport on OLO, you may be interested in perusing them.

"Tony Abbott might be down with putting your kids at risk by telling a generation of angry, alienated young Muslims that they're not real Australians and that they have no place in our society, and Bill Shorten might be totes fine with going along with it. They are wrong.

And thankfully the wider community has been banding together in the face of this nonsense, via rallies and social media campaigns.

These folks recognise that people from all over the planet have come to Australia and amazingly, for the most part we've gotten along - and benefited massively as a result...."

Poirot, I'm sure the Underfuhrer will lob in very shortly with his usual "balanced comment" on this one. Pointing out that Scotty's news bestests, friend Hun Sen can't be such a terrible chap after all, as he has been seen wearing the obligatory white hat. We all know from the days of Tom Mix and Hopalong Cassidy those in the white hats are the good guys! No doubt the 'Usual Suspects' sitting in the OLO peanut gallery will be giving their nodding approval to the Cambodian deal and their "democratically" elected leader, the lads are very big on democracy in such places as South Vietnam, South Korea and now Cambodia, seems their form of democracy is a health hazard, the fore mentioned places seen millions of their citizens perish in achieving this Western style democracy they now don't have.
p/s Did Hun Sen learn his trade from Pol Pot? Not that Scott Morrision and Tony Abbott would much care if he did, politically he's useful...at the moment. I ask you, what's a few of them there turban wearing darkies and $40 million between friends.
It shall all be explained shortly...come in Underfuhrer!

Paul,

South Korea is a democracy and one in which the people are thriving.
There are no Koreans trying desperately to flee the South and enter the North but the reverse might be true but unfortunately for those north of the DMZ they would also have to cross the "arid zone" first.
Have a dekko on Google Earth.

Hi there IS MISE...

You're wasting you breathe with this peculiar fellow, similarly the import of your Blue Beret ! To him and his kind they'd consider it more of a fashion accessory, rather than a badge of honour ?

There was an excellent discussion last night between people of three different religious backgrounds on the ABC. There was one Christian, Muslim and a person who lives in Israel.

I think one person very well highlighted one main point - and that was, some countries have had 'church and state' seperated because it was forced onto a community - by others who came in through colonisation - and so there has been a diverse range of people, policies and actions in regard to those countries.

Some other countires however have not had this - and so addressing the issues around terrorism and those who take the extreme words of the past as the law of today - are very difficult to address. This includes when it occurs in their own country - and naturally flows onto fears with other places like Australia and the western world who have had the 'church and state' element removed a lot easier in that context.

It isn't nice for everyone in Australia - as people living here of Muslim background can feel victimised to something they have nothing to do with. We had one suspected Australian terrorist found guilty - (and had to spend time in a U.S prison). I'm not going to be held responsible for his actions, whatever they may have been.

With what I heard on radio last night, we do need a new department in Australia that addresses issues - to prevent war and violence or even expand the foreign affairs department, as a lot of other countries are very complex to live in. War won't fix these problems anymore.

Hi there NATHAN J...

War solves nothing, other than to create further divisions, hardened feelings, and enormous distrust amongst the formerly warring parties.
Moreover, and probably the worst consequence of war, it divides people, even in their home countries, as it has to a greater or less degree, here in Oz. Just examine all the conflicts, that Australia as been involved, post WW2 ?

Nathan, & O Sung Wu,

People start wars. Such wars are manifestly unjust, aggressive, unprovoked and, unless the attacked party responds, unstoppable until the aggressor gets what he wants. This could be termed an 'unjust war'.

Germany's attack on France in 1940 was an unjust war.

Russia's attack on Finland in 1939 was an unjust war.

Japan's attack on China in 1931 and 1937 was an unjust war, and their attack, inter alia, on Australia was an unjust war.

China's attack on Vietnam in 1979b was an unjust war.

So what do attacked people do ? Roll over ? No. Quite properly, they fight back. They have tov fight a 'justv war'.

Kurds are being attacked by ISIL right at this moment, and in the past few weeks, Christian Iraqis, Muslim Iraqis, Turcomans, Turkmens, Yazidis and other inoffensive groups as well. What are they supposed to do ? Of course they have to fight back. They have to fight what sounds like a contradiction in terms, a 'just war'. They have to fight back.

And if their enemy is very heavily armed and financed, what must they do, as well as fight, in order to avoid slaughter ? Of course, they can ask for support and assistance, they have every right to do so. Those responding to those requests are thus also fighting a just war, provide they keep their response within the bounds of supporting the Kurds, or Assyrians, or Shia Muslims, or Turkmens, or Yazidis.

So far, that appears to be what the US air strikes have done: responded to calls from the Iraqi government, which quite properly has the right to make such calls for its defence, and calls from the other groups as well. Thus, in this case, the US and the coalition is fighting a just war.

Joe

Here ya go folks....

This is precisely the kind of event that the Abbott govt has engendered with its faux hysteria re Muslims:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/25136220/woman-bashed-thrown-from-train-in-racist-attack/

"A Muslim woman has been bashed and pushed from a moving train in a vicious racist attack.

Police say the 26-year-old victim was standing near the door on an Upfield line train when a woman approached her and started making racist remarks.

The culprit then allegedly grabbed the victim by the neck and hair and repeatedly slammed her head into the wall of the carriage.

She then pushed the victim off the train as it pulled into Batman railway station, police said."

Without making allowances for block-headed ignorant racists among us...off they went ratcheting up the hysterics (vote for me - I'm prrrrrotecting you from the foreign hordes!)

So we've had loonies turning up at Islamic schools wielding knives - young men accosted while soccer training....etc.

Cretinous and reactionary...which was just what this govt was counting on.

Poirot,

Don't forget all the other incidents, like the two policemen being knifed and all that criminal collusion between the top police in NSW, and Qld, and the Feds.
The police being stabbed was probably a put up job also, don't you think?
I don't really think that Tony Abbott set out to cause civil strife in Australia he has enough on his plate without worrying about small incidents.

"Taliban fighters 'tortured and killed' Sydney father"
Yahoo7 and Agencies
September 29, 2014, 9:45 am.
"A Sydney man has been tortured and killed by the Taliban in southern Afghanistan because he was Australian, authorities say....Ghazi's deputy governor, Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, told the ABC the reason Habib was killed was because he was an Afghan-Australian.

"He didn't do anything besides that, he didn't do anything wrong, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't involved in government activities.

"The reason of his murder was very clear – that he was a dual citizen, he came from a country that Taliban think is an infidel country," Ahmadi said."

No doubt done in the name of Allah and of the Prophet, Muhammad.

Good evening to you POIROT...

You believe the LNP govt. is realistically 'fanning the flames' of raciest behaviour, and attempting to generate further violent reactionary exchanges by these 'knuckle heads' who are attacking Islamic people and their facilities ? I think these 'dopes' are of such precipitously low intellect, and with such vague understanding of the real issues, therefore they're simply using this entire affair, purely as a vehicle or catalyst to justify further criminal behaviour, nothing more.

Seemingly Labor is more or less in lock-step with the LNP on this entire issue ? They (Labor) also believe this Islamic threat is above normal politics, consequentially they've fully supported the government's current stance on this issue ?

Unfortunately, in a society such as ours, you'll always get some stupid block head who'll came out of his cage and do some awful things, all in the name of the particular emergency occurring at that point in time. There's no accounting for weird Psychiatric behaviour ?

Major bush fires are an example, some silly people will voluntarily admit they started a major fire, where loss of life had occurred. When in reality, they did no such thing ? Why they do it, nobody knows, lest of all themselves ?

These boofheads attacking Islamic people and facilities, most wouldn't even know their own names, such is the level of their understanding of the problem. And I believe that you too also realise it would be the last thing ANY government needed, is to wilfully generate a climate of racial discourse, and racial violence on the streets of our major cities and towns. If that were to happen, nobody would win.

Poirot,

The link that you gave is not quite accurate, I believe that the trains concerned have safety doors that do not open until the trains have stopped.
The picture is not of Batman station but of one of the Sydney Underground stations and of a NSW train.

Poirot,

Most of us would say, yes, of course, that's a dreadful thing to do, what's your point, we agree with you ? We know there are all manner of dills out there, some who even stab police and get shot for their efforts.

Anybody who incites idiots who carry out violent assaults like that stupid woman in Melbourne should be charged with the appropriate offenses, as well as the idiot who did the actual assault.

Anybody who incites someone to bash a woman's head against a wall should be charged, as well as the idiot who did the actual assault.

Anybody who incites someone to stab police and carry an extra-big carving knife in order to behead them afterwards, should be charged as well as the assailant, if he is still alive.

See ? We all agree with you :)

Joe

"Batman railway station" That pic is of the Eastern Suburbs underground platform at Redfern Sydney.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-29/woman-assaulted-racially-abused-at-batman-train-station/5776684

<<Anybody who incites idiots who carry out violent assaults like that stupid woman in Melbourne should be charged with the appropriate offenses, as well as the idiot who did the actual assault.>>

With Abbott mouthing off the way he is, he should be careful he is not doing exactly what you are saying.

o sung wu,

"Unfortunately, in a society such as ours, you'll always get some stupid block head who'll came out of his cage and do some awful things, all in the name of the particular emergency occurring at that point in time. There's no accounting for weird Psychiatric behaviour ?"

Right you are...although I'll betcha no-one cites the possibility of "psychatric behaviour" in the case of the man who attacked the policemen recently...no that one was "terrorism related"

"...in a society like ours..."

You mean the society where we had sensible security measures - or this new and improved version?

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/george-brandis-has-silently-swept-away-your-freedoms-20140929-10nev6.html

Read it and weep.....if you value an open and free democracy.

In one fell swoop, and with the aid of Govt and Opposition hysterics and a bunch of wafty Senate none-too-brights, we've opened Pandora's Box regarding the rights of the state to secretly "do as they please".

Don't you find that unsettling?

"Seemingly Labor is more or less in lock-step with the LNP on this entire issue ? They (Labor) also believe this Islamic threat is above normal politics, consequentially they've fully supported the government's current stance on this issue ?"

Yes...Shame on Labor for noting Abbott's bandwagon gathering momentum - and jumping on for the ride!

Aren't any of you the teensy bit concerned, knowing that laws like the ones just passed in Oz have often been the catalysts for dreadful suppression of domestic populations in the past.

Once more Albert Camus's quote:

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants."

The following link should give most of us
food for thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/26/tolerance-is-bigotrys-counterpart-in-keeping-muslims-divided

Worth a read.

Hi there POIROT...

I think we all are, in answer to your very last question POIROT ? Any attempt to erode the rights, privacy or freedoms of any individual living in a democratic society, smacks of times past, under the domination of Messrs HITLER and STALIN and their ugly imitators and mimics ?

But what are we to do ? There's no doubt whatsoever, there's a real threat in our community, not only from our declared and identifiable antagonists, but that idiot group who emerge from under their respective rocks, wanting to create chaos and pandemonium.

The latter are just as bad as the former I reckon, because you never predict when this group will make a move. They generally act quite impulsively and in a fashion that can only be described as maniac ! For this reason they're highly dangerous and completely unpredictable. The only real benefit for police, generally this group all have their own individual MO, thus you can almost say they're 'typecast' in the manner they commit their crimes ?

Thank POIROT.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Could you be a bit more specific.

Which group exactly are you referring to?

o sung wu,

"But what are we to do ? There's no doubt whatsoever, there's a real threat in our community, not only from our declared and identifiable antagonists, but that idiot group who emerge from under their respective rocks, wanting to create chaos and pandemonium."

That's where you and I differ.

I maintain that the Govt (and Labor) have blown the "threat" out of all proportion. The govt, because it's performance has been lacklustre - and Labor because it didn't want to be painted as "unpatriotic" by the govt, etc

Tell me the charges that were laid after that massive police swoop/media event recently? Two blokes - and neither particularly tied to terrorism...one bloke got off on a good behaviour bond for a non-terrorism-related charge.

This morning's raid - again orchestrated in tandem with the media was accompanied by a message tweeted from Victoria Police:

"The AFP and Victoria Police confirms a number of search warrants are being conducted. It is not in response to a threat to public safety."

That's "...it is "not" in response to a threat to public safety."

Now they've supposedly nabbed someone who was going to transfer $12,000 to someone. It may be related to the insurgency in the ME...but do we need a massive media coverage and blanket police raids poured all over the airwaves and slopped liberally into the public's collective psyche.

Hysteria...

Hello again POIROT...

You're spot on there, media inspired hysteria ! There's no accounting for the behaviour or moral turpitude of the media ? Apart from some of the former Iron Curtain countries, the media can get away with almost anything and they do. Without labouring on the point, some years ago I attended a talk given by the former Commissioner for the AFP, Maj. Gen Ronald GREY, a former decorated Vietnam Veteran, of some note.

He said, of his time as Commissioner of the AFP, he'd rather face a Coy. of NVA soldiers, than participate in media interviews, such was the recognised and perceived power of the media, by this very tough former decorated soldier.

I'm sure you know as well as anyone POIROT, the media can place any spin they wish on any story, particularly to do with politics. And you're absolutely correct when you assert what happened down there in Melbourne this morning. Why they did it, who knows ? Is the LNP or the Labor Party responsible for manipulating the media for their own dastardly ends ? I don't think so. They (media) grab a story, any story, and make of it what they believe will sell. If necessary, they'll add a little, subtract a little, until it fills the mould they think it deserves.

The AM arrest of this bloke in Melbourne, was the real deal by all accounts. It's a serious matter to furnish financial support and succour to any of these prescribed groups, and that was the whole purpose of the pinch ? And you can bet your socks the 'jacks' were packing real heat, despite muttering something to the contrary ? Or so we're told ? Who know eh POIROT, who really knows eh ?

It seems that police don't win either way. Where they do not announce an action that could affect the public they are criticised for being secretive and holding information back. Where they do, they are publicity-seeking hounds!

Regarding the number of police for a raid, ensuring the safety of all involved, alleged offenders too, and the public would likely require a fair number on the ground.

I wonder how much explosive $12000 could buy. Shall we measure it in the number of people with horrific burns, for instance. If so, thousands if crowded centres were targeted. Add to that the effects of crowd panic, trampling and crushing, and there are many more.

OTB,

Don't worry too much about it, when people get paranoid, this is how their minds work: suspecting authorities of both (a) and (b), as you say, getting hysterical about little things.

You're right though, that when the police go to arrest someone, they don't know (until afterwards) whether the bloke's armed or not, whether his place is booby-trapped, etc. Their duty is to protect the public, so why shouldn't they be well-armed ?

But I'm glad they got another computer, and all its drives, and who knows what other techno gear, phones etc. Supporters of terrorism must unintentionally be gold-mines of information, hey ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

"Don't worry too much about it, when people get paranoid, this is how their minds work: suspecting authorities of both (a) and (b), as you say, getting hysterical about little things."

Bloody Lol!...

You fellas buy the Govt's confected hysteria lock, stock and barrel.

...and then label those of us who question the "degree of threat" and the implications of the new laws as "paranoid".

You've all gone and swallowed the big paranoia pill currently being doled out by the govt. No questions asked. No serious debate.

Tones says jump and everyone says "how high?"

Wounded Goose,

Not really, I'm confident that our government has got a handle on any terrorist threat. I feel rather insouciant about it all, really.

But if you think that any action, is either (a) over the top, or (b) not sufficient in the face of danger, please feel to get hysterical, it's a free country :)

Just trying to help.

Joe

OTB,

Around here at current prices, 7,843 litres of petrol, which mixed with the right proportion of free air, is a very powerful explosive.

No licence needed to purchase.

I can only hope that the authorities have got a thoroughly sound intelligence network, otherwise these people could wrought some shocking destruction upon any number of public facilities. And petrol bombs, albeit simple to construct, are very dangerous indeed if employed.

Wow!...it's amazing.

Th right-wingers around here are apparently pre-primed to echo the Govt's terrorism Mantra.

Seems Goering was on the money when he said (that even in a democracy):

"Oh that is all well and good, but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Hysteria is very dangerous when deployed.

Wounded Goose,

Some of us on OLO don't have the faith in fascism that you do, dearie :)

And where is Abbott "denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism" ?

So who is getting hysterical ? I'm confident that the government has pretty much everything under control. I feel quite insouciant.

Joe

Poirot,

It is a fact that $12,000 will buy that much of the main ingredient for massive explosions and there are no restrictions, isn't this a matter of public safety?

When I buy percussion caps from a gun shop for my 1840s double barrel muzzle loading shotgun I have to produce a licence because it's a matter of public safety* so why aren't there similar restrictions on petrol?

*but if I buy percussion caps from a toy store or Wayne's World no licence is required and they are much cheaper, although they are an inferior product but they still work.

Be alert, Australia needs lerts!

Joe,

"And where is Abbott "denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism" ?"

Tones doesn't need to do that sort of fiddly work himself.

All he needs to do is unload the "terror hysteria" - and the good ol' folk will come out in their droves to spray the derision, etc.

I had recourse to post a longer version of that quote on another thread, for just the reason that a poster was deriding others by calling them cowards, pretenders, conscience objectors and "sickening, useless human beings"

Nice, eh?

"Some of us on OLO don't have the faith in fascism that you do, dearie :)"

Lol!....here's the longer version:

"...But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy people have a say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh that is all well and good, but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

(Jeez, Joe...for all the railing you've done over the years against regimes who manipulate and suppress populations - it's fascinating that you can't see it burgeoning when it's happening before your very eyes)

Joe,

"So who is getting hysterical ? I'm confident that the government has pretty much everything under control. I feel quite insouciant."

Then you're just the type of exploitable lemming that that the govt was counting on.

Wounded Goose,

Shades of Orwell !

So insouciance is now hysteria ?

What's 'comfortable' and 'assured' then ?

Joe

Joe,

"So insouciance is now hysteria ?

That post pretty much sums it up.

Tones comes up with a new word - and Joe is such a self-reflective and independent thinker - he deploys Tony's word in every post.

Well done!

"http://www.businessinsider.com.au/prime-minister-tony-abbott-has-just-called-on-australians-to-defy-terrorists-by-being-insouciant-2014-9

Like I mentioned, you're just the type the govt had in mind when they embarked on this guff.

Wounded Goose,

Thanks for that Orwellian twist to my words and intentions. I suppose they think it's clever in year 11 :)

Any chance of getting back to topic ? For example, the distinction between 'unjust wars', wars thrust on unoffending countries, and 'just wars', wars of defence, wars of liberation from aggression ? Can you tell the difference ? Ask your history teacher.

Cheers,

Joe

The International Day of Peace has come and gone; what happened?

Loudmouth wrote: "For example, the distinction between 'unjust wars', wars thrust on unoffending countries, and 'just wars', wars of defence, wars of liberation from aggression ? Can you tell the difference ? Ask your history teacher."

History teachers are an unreliable guide. My aunt came from England to the United States as a teenager. English history as taught in England had George III as a great king. In the USA he was an unreasonable tyrant. It's the same with wars. The answers a history teacher will give to your questions depends on the country, whether the war was won or lost and a number of other factors.

Thanks David,

Slightly missing the point: can you distinguish between an 'unjust war', a war of aggression against an unoffending country, and a 'just war', a war which the unoffending country fights to defend itself and to expel the aggressors ?

Yes ? No ?

No dodging now :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I can't distinguish. I have changed my mind on learning more.

One example is the Texas War of Independence from Mexico. In school I thought it was reasonable for the Texans to want to be free from Mexico. Then I read a Mexican history of the US which told that Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and the American settlers in Mexico wanted to keep slaves. I read Grant's Memoirs in which he thought the US Civil War was a punishment on the US for the Mexican War.

Another example is the Korean War. It was approved by a security council resolution before mainland China took its seat. The USSR abstained. It could have stopped when the forces were at the 38th parallel, but MacArthur wanted to advance up the peninsula, and China came in. I originally supported it. I now think that the US was suckered into that war because the USSR wanted the US to fight China.

We allied ourselves with the Communist tyranny to fight the Nazi tyranny and considered it a just war. If we had allied ourselves with the Nazi tyranny to fight the Communist tyranny we probably would have also considered it a just war. We fought the tyranny that we thought presented a greater danger at the time and allied ourselves with the less dangerous tyranny.

Dear Loudmouth,

As an American for most of my life I have unequivocally supported the American Revolution. I have read that the British had a treaty with the Indians which restricted European settlement west of the Alleghenys. The Abolitionist movement was on the move in England, and the planters in the southern states wanted to keep their slaves. If England had prevented US independence there probably would have been no Civil War, and the US would have probably eventually been like Australia achieving separation without great violence.

I once regarded the American Revolution as just. Now I'm not so sure. In any war some make out, and some don't. Those who make out are more liable to consider the war just.

Hi David,

Yes, I agree - sometimes it is hard to tell who is the aggressor and who the defender.

Texas was part of Mexico until what, 1848 ? I don't know if the US government initiated a war of aggression to invade it, but if so, then the Mexicans were quite within their rights to defend themselves, to fight a 'just war'. It's a pity they lost.

I suspect that you're right about the lead-in from the Mexican War to the US Civil War. In my view, the North, Lincoln's side, was fighting a 'just' war against the slave-holding states.

If North Korea attacked South Korea without much provocation, then objectively it was 'just' for the South to fight back, and to call on any support they liked. If one of their allies advanced to the Yalu, they would have had every right, on the principle of 'hot pursuit'. Whether MacArthur fired artillery across the Yalu into China, I don't know, but if he did, then China had some right to push into North Korea and eliminate the threat to its borders - on the same principle of 'hot pursuit'. Perhaps not to go as far as Seoul, but just to push the UN/US/South Koreans back from their border.

In the three-sided Second World War - the Fascists, the Allies, and the USSR - if we go back to which country attacked which other c country, then clearly the Nazis and Mussolini's fascists were fighting unjust wars, wars of aggression, while all those countries which were defending themselves had to fight just wars to repel their aggressors and liberate their countries.

So Ethiopians fought a just war to defeat the Italian fascists. The Allies fought just wars to liberate countries from the Nazis. Australia fought a just war to defeat the Japanese. The Japanese were fighting a huge and unjust war against China, Burma, Indochina, the Philippines, Malaya, the East Indies and Australia: it was right to fight back against them.

[TBC]

[continued]

But even in connection with the Second World War, it got complicated: the USSR attacked Finland early in 1939, over a demand to give it Karelia and better access to the sea(from memory). That was a war of aggression, an unjust war. From the Finns' point of view, even though they got help from the Nazis, it was a just war, to defend their country.

Earlier, when the Bolsheviks attacked Poland, around 1918-1920, the Polish resistance under Pilsudski constituted a just war. The USSR was fighting an unjust war, a war of aggression and invasion.

What do you reckon ? Can you distinguish just wars from unjust wars now ?

Cheers,

Joe

The complexities of war are presented in simplistic terms by the polititions. All sides see some justification for their actions. There used to be an old saying; When is a gorilla, a freedom fighter? When he is on your side. Who was right in the Punic Wars? The Roman or The Carthaginians, who knows and who cares, its all history. Its interesting George III known as 'Farmer' George was indeed one of Britains best loved monarchs ever. The "Americans" who sided with the British in the American War of Independence, and many did, were they traitors?

Yes, Paul, it's all so complicated. It's easier to fiddle than to put out the flames, as Nero might have claimed, if only violins had been invented by then.

Yes, some struggles don't fit into convenient categories. But some do: I wonder how many people ISIS killed, beheaded, shot, captured and raped on that lovely, sweet International Day of Peace ? Oh, would that they didn't, how nasty all war is, where's my hanky ? But they did.

Wars launched by aggressors force their victims to take sides. They can't all piss off to a safe country, like Benjamin Britten and W. H. Auden and Christopher Isherwood and Gracie Fields did during the Second World War. Most people left behind have to make hard choices. Fight or die ? It's not quite so 'relative' for the poor b@stards in the thick of it.

So, sooner or later, people with courage on this thread have to make up their minds, whether or not all wars are so nasty and bad and oh ! so awful, that people shouldn't ever fight back, that makes them as bad as the aggressor - or people MUST fight back against an aggressor. Or die.

Your choice, Paul. Are there, or are there not, 'just' wars and 'unjust' wars ?

Joe