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 ?