Hero, in my opinion, is a word often wrongfully used. The word can extol a well-paid athlete who is proficient in his or her chosen profession. We can use the word to define one who risks one’s life in battle or to rescue people from forest fire or floods.

I don’t know of a word that can be applied to those people who make heroes less necessary. However, I would extol those people. If a war can be prevented heroism in the face of the enemy is unnecessary. If people do not build on a flood plain, on shore line which will be inundated by sea level rise or surrounded by woody areas heroic rescues from flood or fire are less necessary.

We more or less know the basic cause of war. Too many people fighting for too few resources with the belligerence exacerbated by nationalism, racism, religion and ideology drives wars.

I would pay homage to those who opposed some of the wars in which Australia has been involved. Albert Foster is one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Foster_(judge)

The bushfires which have ravaged Australia were predicted.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7670937/NSW-bushfires-Greg-Mullins-former-Fire-Rescue-chief-climate-change-warning-ignored.html

"A former top firefighter claims he and 22 emergency services chiefs were 'fobbed off' by Prime Minister Scott Morrison when they penned a chilling warning about impending bushfires and catastrophic weather in Australia months ago.

Greg Mullins, the NSW Fire & Rescue commissioner from 2003 until 2016, and almost two dozen heavyweights sent a letter to Mr Morrison in April demanding an urgent meeting.

The letter said the ex-chiefs wanted to speak to the PM because 'increasingly catastrophic extreme weather events' would 'put lives, properties and livelihoods at greater risk and overwhelm our emergency services'."

After sending the letter, Mr Mullins did not hear from the prime minister's office for three months, when he was eventually offered a meeting with a lesser official, the energy minister Angus Taylor.
Mr Mullins and his colleagues were ignored as was Mr Foster and his supporters.

We need to listen to those with the wisdom to lessen the need for heroes.

top firefighter claims he and 22 emergency services chiefs were 'fobbed off' by Prime Minister Scott Morrison when they penned a chilling warning about impending bushfires and catastrophic weather in Australia months ago.
David F,
Forgive my ignorance but what has the PM got to do with firefighters failing to do what they're trained & paid to do ?

doing the right thing by clearing forests rather than trying to protect gay frogs would be far more important than listening to 'experts' who are blinded by failed narratives. Look at the gw 'experts' like Greta. What a joke.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry gets called a 'hero' these days for just doing what they are paid and trained to do. Small-minded, childish people seem to need someone to look up to. Perhaps they like to think that there will always be someone there to protect them from the bogey man, the government or whatever. They once believed in God. Now they have replaced God with mere human beings no better than, or different from, themselves.

And BTW, David - I hope you are not calling those 22 wackjobs you mentioned heroes.

One problem with forests - maybe it always has been - is that they are constant work. They constantly grow, especially after fires, and then rains. Weeds, local and foreign, shoot up and make the forest floor impenetrable, and competing with native species for space.

So there is, if anything, more work for national park workers all the time. There never has been, or will be, a time when forests are somehow self-managing.

As Allan B. has proposed many times, send in the sheep and cattle and goats, to keep the weeds down. Will they have an impact ? Of course, everything does.

Build in fire-breaks, fragmenting forests maybe but making it easier to inhibit fires and reach hot-pots. Keep roadways clear, maybe 10-20 metres each side. Remove much of the dead wood, leaving some for the cute little animals and lizards, so that it does not build up, and turn manageable fires into infernos [inferni]. Set aside refuge areas, for both animals and humans.

All that means a hell of a lot more work in national parks, so it also means much better funding. So there's work for young people, in their 'gap year': if they are environmentally inclined, they could do a year in forest maintenance. Or, of course, if effort is not their style, they could stay out of the way, in the cities, with their smashed avos, talking about climate change. Who knows, we might even see a Green supporter out there one day, actually working.

Joe



.

Dear David,

We've all grown up with role models and people we've
admired for their courage, achievements, or noble
qualities. As children we've all had our heroes.
We tend to admire someone who gives of themselves for
the greater good of others. People like Alan Turing
come to mind. He was treated appallingly, even given
chemical castration because of his homosexuality yet
his work shortened the war and saved millions of lives.

Then there's Fred Hollows - whose work saved so many
eyesights and the Fred Hollows Foundation still continues
to do that today.

Then there's Dr Al Munjed Muderis who this year was named
in NSW - Australian of The Year. He was born in Iraq and
fled following an incident in which he refused to
mutilate the ears of army deserters under the orders of
Saddam Hussein. He came to Australia by boat and was
kept in the Curtin Detention Centre.
He ended up eventaully completing his
studies and today he has developed a technique
that provides amputees with good mobility and reduced
discomfort.

He works tirelessly to help amputees and refugees. He is a
patron of the Asylum Seekers Centre - providing personal
and practical support for people seeking asylum in Australia.

I'm sure there are many more - but these three to me are
outstanding people.

To David F- I agree with the sentiments you have expressed in this thread about heroes. "Ambulance Chasers". Sun Tzu said that the great general isn't well known- he isn't often at the head of the army- it doesn't take a keen eye to see the moon- a word to the wise is enough.

Hi Foxy,

Yes, my daughter was talking about Fred Hollows today. I visited his grave in Bourke in mid-1993. What a wonderful man:

https://www.hollows.org/au/donate

Then there's Gemma Sisia (northern NSW), at St Jude's School, in Arusha, Tanzania, which started on 2002 and now enrols nearly 2,000, and achieves national prizes:

https://www.schoolofstjude.org/

And there was another hero, Catherine Hamlin, who worked in Ethiopia for more than sixty years, doing amazing work in restoring the lives of women damaged in childbirth:

https://hamlin.org.au/

Sometimes heroism is a long-term thing, not just a flash of courage.

Joe

runner,

Greta T is not an expert on AGW.

She is just a teenager who can put 2 and 2 together to see the obvious.

runner you have two eyes to see with but you are blind to what is taking shape.

Use your faculties by getting out and studying the world you live in. But then the problem with that is you wouldn't be capable of doing the hard work required of higher learning and you would be kicked out of the university because of your weird ideas on how the world works.

Dear Joe,

Thank you for mentioning Dr Catherine Hamlin.

She restored the health and dignity to over 60,000
women. She gave her life to the eradication of fistula.
She and her husband co-founded the Addis Ababa Fistula
Hospital and she dedicated her life towards helping
others. Her work continues to this day.

An amazing lady.

'gap year'
Loudmouth2,
Why not start calling it National Service year so they can get used to it ?

Colonel Sir Edward "Weary" Dunlop needs to be honoured.
He's renowned for his leadership while being held prisoner
by the Japanese during WWII. Dunlop's dedication and
heroism became a legend among prisoners.

I was fortunate to have met him and hear
him speak about his experiences. A truly inspiring man.

Raoul Wallenberg saved hundreds of thousands of Hungarian
Jews from the Nazis. Personally pulling Jews out of
the "death marches"and cattle cars en route to the gas
chambers in Auschwitz. He worked under the aegis of the
Swedish Legation in Budapest and was able to arrange
Swedish "protection passports".

He qualifies as someone who gave of himself for the good
of others.

Foxy,

I think you are missing the point that david f is making.

Finally, back to the question of - making heroes
less necessary?

Peter Costello writes in his Memoirs that one of
his predecessors as Treasurer complained about the lack
of leadership in this country. "We've never had a Lincoln,"
he said. "We've never had a Roosevelt".

Costello went on to ask whether Australia will ever have
a Lincoln?

His answer was that - "Well, if we have a civil war over a
great moral question, where our national Leader manages to
get on the "right side" of the moral question, lead the
nation to victory, preserve the Federation and lose his life
in the process, we may have a Lincoln".

Costello then asks -

"Let us suppose that the South had not seceded to the United
States for another twenty years. Would we remember Lincoln?"

Costello tells us that events make the man or woman, just
as the men or the women make the events.

He points out that - "For much of his life Churchill was
considered a failure, shamelessly chasing wars around the
globe, a struggling Home Secretary, a propagator of failed
military strategy in the First World War, and undistinguished
Chancellor, but his moment came in 1940. If it had not, his
career could well have been marked as a failure".

I guess the point that is being made is that - a person's
influence can only be judged at the end of their career,
preferably judged hundreds of years thereafter.
People who will stand the test of time.

Richard Nixon used the quote of Sophocles:

"One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day
has been".

Therefore, according to Peter Costello - his advice if
you want to be known as a hero, you need to time your
contribution to co-incide with great events. Great events
make the great man or woman. His final tip is - overcome
great odds. The greater the odds, the greater the
achievement.

Somehow I did not make my point clear when I started this thread. It was not to celebrate heroes. It was to lessen the need for heroism. Raoul Wallenberg was a hero and is remembered for his heroism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg

He apparently died in Soviet captivity as a result of his actions.

However, if Hitler had been stopped earlier WW2 could have been avoided. Wallenberg’s heroism would have been unnecessary, and he would probably have died of old age, relatively unknown, and secure in the bosom of his family.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=chances+to+stop+hitler&cvid=43ec97f876f740e1a4e99ddde3e52a8b&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

Are we working to prevent future wars?

Heroes: its just one of the superlatives that people use to try to elevate someone they like or admire above the pack. Its very much in the eye of the beholder.

"..cause of war. Too many people fighting for too few resources ..."

Wars are rarely fought over resources. They are usually fought over fears as to the intentions of 'the other'.

"Greg Mullins" is one of those climate change zealots who sees evidence for man's sins everywhere. He's in that group who predicts disaster every season and crows when the predictions occasionally come true.

Just on bushfires...I came across this factoid recently. Texas and California have roughly the same amount of forest. But Texas has, over time, about 5% of the forest fire damage as California. But they both suffer from the alleged culprit of climate change.

So why the difference. Almost all the forests in California are publicly owned. Almost all the forests in Texas are privately owned.

Draw your own conclusions.

Every time someone brings up Hilter I wonder what the World be like now had he not existed or been stopped later.
What do others think ?
Things aside, I think it's high time this 'Hero' thing needs to be knocked on the head. Too many people become heroes too easily nowadays because people forget that whatever we do & achieve always involves others whom we could not do without in our life.

To make heroes less necessary we would need to stop
building nuclear weapons and the sophisticated means
of delivering them. We would need to ensure that less
and less nations get control of these vile devices.
We need to reverse this process and divert our
unprecedented energy and resources to the real problems
that face us, including poverty, disease, overpopulation,
injustice, oppression, and the devastation of our natural
environment.

In other words we need to enhance the life on the bright
and lovely planet on which billions of us share our
adventure.

Not a big ask?

And those that will be able to achieve all of that will
surely be heroes?

"Not a big ask?"

You must be joking!

We can't even get our politicians to act in an honest and trustworthy manner towards the people they swear to serve.

"Not a big ask?" ............. Give us a break!

Foxy wrote: And those that will be able to achieve all of that will
surely be heroes?

Dear Foxy,

Heroism is not determined by what is achieved,

The definition of heroism:

having the characteristics of a hero or heroine; admirably brave or determined.

If one is able to achieve a goal in an efficient, sober manner without bravery or determination regardless of the worthiness of the goal one is not a hero·

david f,

What are you running, a philosophy class in Logic 101?

individual,

Have a look at Godwin's Law in Wikipedia:

"... when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress"

Foxy just when I thought David F's post was the peak of naivety, you give us one to exceed it greatly.

You can't uninvent nuclear science. Now we have it we can never be free of it.

How anyone could suggest we or anyone else should stop building them while there are ratbags like the Iranian ayatollahs, & the Saddam_Husseins of this world Who would most surely have & use them if allowed is almost unbelievable. It is surely equal to suicide

To perhaps contradict my previous comment on heroes- Ayn Rand seems to be a fan of heroes- seemingly as an aspirational example of morality- and the philosophy of life.

Rand seems to believe that "objectivist" heroes have attributes that aren't common- not everyone has the capability to run a steel conglomerate or a national railway or to change the world- these gods that hold up the world should be worshiped. She is pretty convincing in her arguments. She is somewhat of an individualist- which is concerning- and is credited by some as influencing the formation of the Libertarian Movement in the US. I'm not sure how to integrate her radical individualism with culture and community- maybe this is another paradox as indicated by Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

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

"Transvaluation would mean the exaltation of life rather than the exaltation of suffering, and an acceptance of every instinct or lust as organic and therefore valid[citation needed], and so beyond the scope of moral condemnation. What one desires would be merely what one desires, rather than either sinful or pious. What one desires would be the product of stimuli rather than the product of "will" "

Generally if you need a hero someone hasn't done their job perhaps. But maybe that is the point few take responsibility seriously- especially in a "liberal" democracy- and that's the reason for admiring heroes.

Dad's were always the heroes of the family

Godwin's Law
ttbn,
Very interesting but it doesn't answer my question ! Would the World be better now or worse if Hitler & Co (Churchill, Truman, Stalin) hadn't come onto the scene ?

Dear David F.,

Our society is founded on hero worship. Many
people still believe that today and strive to
make sure that people who embody the best values of
our culture are held up as objects of admiration.

We need heroes because they define the limits of
our aspirations. We declare our ideals by the heroes
we choose and in turn our ideals define us.
Heroes symbolize the qualities we'd like to possess and
the ambitions we'd like to satisfy.

And as long as we continue to live in an imperfect world
where vested interests, politics, conflicts, rule,
heroes will continue to exist. Certainly we
should strive for a better
world - but as long as there are political decisions to be
made, and vested interests influence decisions - as history
has shown Utopia is a long way off.

Dear Hassie,

Get your facts straight. I was talking about nuclear
WEAPONS not nuclear science.

You're welcome.

Dear Canem Malum,

My father was also a hero in our family.

... nuclear WEAPONS not nuclear science.
Foxy,
It was because of warfare that the pressure was on science !
Look at medical science for example. Many more lives are saved because of it yet invariably the science contributes to over population !
Dynamite was invented to enhance large scale earthworks !
Planes were invented to transport people but then became weapons delivery.
Education was meant to enhance intelligence yet now it's to stifle it !
Unions, created to help workers, have become engines for regressive idealism politics !
The list of original good intentions being hijacked by evil is endless !

Forgive my ignorance but what has the PM got to do with firefighters failing to do what they're trained & paid to do ?

Anyone ?

individual,

A question without an answer. Who knows? There will always be good guys and bad guys. To my way of thinking, Xi Jinping is the new Hitler. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a Churchill around; Trump might be the closest if the Americans do the sensible thing next month.

Present times are very like the 1930s, and we seem to have too many appeasers on our side.

Ttbn,

Apart from his empty bluster, what makes you think Piss-and-Wind Trumpf won't be an appeaser to Putin, Xi Jin Ping, Erdogan and Kim Jong Un ?

Joe

Dear Foxy,

Many words have more than one meaning in ordinary language. Mathematics is more precise. Words used in mathematics have one and only one meaning. I started this thread discussing one meaning of the word, hero.

I stated the definition I was using: "We can use the word to define one who risks one’s life in battle or to rescue people from forest fire or floods."

If you want to use other definitions of the word, hero, that is fine. However, we are no longer discussing the word, hero, as defined at the beginning of the thread.

loudmouth2,
What i'm getting at is, would there now be more or fewer people in the World if WW2 were to have been avoided ?
Some 60 million lost their life but, with the forced progress that this brought on, many more are alive now than would have been without that forced progress, particularly in medicine !
So, which scenario would be better for the future of mankind. More people or fewer ?
Progress has given us more pollution in every way ! Let's hope future progress provides us with a humane alternative to war !

david f,

Thanks a lot!

Just when I'm getting a feel for Logic 101 you go and switch the course to Structuralism 101.

Who has most influenced your thinking: Foucault, Levi-Strauss, etc?

Dear David F.,

Thank you for clarifying the definition of hero that
you would like us to stick to. "One who risks one's
life in battle, or to rescue people from forest fire
or floods".

If a modern society goes to war, it's 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. Ultimately the prospects for
peace depend on the collective action of ordinary people.

The Vietnam war came to an end largely as a result of the
anti-war movement where through collective action ordinary
people with few resources other than their own determination
had changed a national consensus for war to a national
consensus for peace. Which goes to show 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.

The same applies to rescuing people from forest fires or
floods. Heroes here would also be less necessary if
through collective action by people governments were
forced to tackle issues such as climate change, better
land management and look at long term solutions and plans,
the need to rescue people from forest fire or floods
would become less necessary.

Dear Foxy,

There's a simple reason that I would like to stick to the definition. If we define dads as heroes would we want to make those heroes less necessary? My Dad died over 30 years ago. I think of him every day. Possibly my descendants may occasionally think of me when I am gone. Mitosis is an efficient way of reproduction, but I am a mammal not an amoeba.

You wrote: "The Vietnam war came to an end largely as a result of the anti-war movement where through collective action ordinary
people with few resources other than their own determination had changed a national consensus for war to a national consensus for peace."

I disagree with the above. The Vietnam war came to an end because the USA was beaten. There was a consensus for peace long before the end of the war. However, the government ignored that consensus and continued the war until it was no longer able to continue it.

david f and Foxy,

Both of you are wrong.

The Vietnam War was a guerilla war in which the US could not find the enemy to fight.

The US knew this but was committed to the fight against Communism and needed to stop Ho Chi Min from taking control of all of Vietnam as a Communist State in order to prevent Communism's advance into the Third World.

By the early 1970s most thinking Americans had come to terms with the fact that it was an unwinnable war because unlike WW2 the enemy refused to fight a conventional war and they, citizens and politicians, wanted out of it.

There was no option but to cede South Vietnam to Ho Chi Min, thus preventing further loss of American lives and civil unrest at home.

Dear David F., and Mr O,

To me, a striking example of collective action to
stop war occurred during the 1960s, when the United
States became embroiled in the longest and most
humiliating military conflict in its history.

Vietnam was involved in civil war between the north,
ruled by communists, and the south, ruled by an
undemocratic regime that called for American help.

Determined to "fight communism", the United States
stumbled into an obscure but vicious conflict on
behalf of peasants who seemed largely indifferent
to the outcome of the fighting and to America's
ideology.

At first, American public opinion gave patriotic
support to 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 demoralized, 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 the country.

Those who fought and those who refused to fight branded
each other with such names as traitor, coward, dupe.
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.
To some extent the war divides Americans still, but there is
now a general consensus that somehow a terrible mistake was
made.

The memory of that mistake places an informal social restraint
on American leaders, for there is intense public resistance to
any prospect of "another Vietnam".

The Vietnam was came to an end largely as a result of an
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.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear David and Mr O,

In the 1968 presidential primaries, an antiwar candidate
Eugene McCarthy backed by student volunteers did
unexpectedly well and President Johnson decided not to run
for reelection. 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.

Through collective action, ordinary people with few
resources other than their own determination had changed a
national consensus for war to a national consensus for peace.

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.

Therefore whether we choose to destroy our civilization or
save it is a collective decision - and it is one that
hopefully may well be made within our lifetimes -
where we shall make heroes less necessary.

Dear Foxy,

I was there at the time and think it was nonsense that the antiwar protests made a great difference. I remember feeling anger at the Woodstock Festival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock

Why weren't they protesting the war rather than getting stoned and listening to rock music? The war seemed to me such a great wrong that the protests seemed trivial in scope.

It was not only a guerilla war. US planes were shot down by North Vietnamese anti-aircraft, and North Vietnamese in tanks rolled into Saigon at the end. Part of the reason that the protests are emphasized is that the US government does not like to admit that it lost a war. My cousin, Richard, was a pilot and lt. colonel, in that war. It became obvious to him that the Vietnamese people were against us. A washer woman was caught coming on base with grenades under her dress, Richard could not resign, but he could refuse promotion. When he refused promotion to colonel for a sufficient length of time he was let go.

The US government ignored the protests. Billy Graham supported the war. Martin Luther King jr didn't. I think Billy Graham was more representative.

Foxy,

The Vietnam War came to an end because it was an unwinnable war and the US had to bite the bullet and cut its losses.

On the eve of the withdrawal there was a general consensus in the nation-state that the US could not conclude a peace agreement let alone beat the North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces.

To try and do so would take decades without any guarantee of a favourable result.

It wasn't because a bunch of people got out into the streets and started protesting.

I'm not an expert on the Vietnam War but I find it interesting that both Communist Russia and China supported the North. The deaths due the US in Vietnam seems orders of magnitude smaller than the allies of WWII at 50 Million verses 50 Thousand dead. This implies that having nuclear weapons in fact reduced the amount of suffering. Australia should get more nuclear weapons.

Dear David F.,

A good portion of the Woodstock audience was draft
age. They saw what happened to Martin Luther King
and the race riots. They took it to heart that
there was inequality in the world. For many young people
Woodstock has become a cultural touchstone. Half a
million young people were there. They lived in peace for
three days. They cooperated to share food, shelter ...
and drugs. Woodstock was seen as the peak of a youth movement
that felt like it was about to change the world.

It was an era of the civil rights movement, unrest and
protest. Woodstock became an opportunity for young people
to escape into music and spread a message of unity and peace.

Canem Malum,

The Vietnamese experience was similar to that of Korea.

Both arose as post-colonial movements to create nation-states: Vietnam against the French, Korea against the Japanese.

But both were split on the type of political system they should have: Communist or democratic.

They were both split into North and South to resolve the problem but in the Cold War era they became the battlefields for a wider global conflict between the US and the USSR.

Does that help in understanding what had happened?

The deaths due the US in Vietnam ......
Canem Malum,
Please don't read this as sarcasm, I have every possible respect for those who fought for a more free World even though this freedom is starting to haunt us now.
I have no personal experience re Vietnam but what I hear from many Vets here is that, many US soldiers took some unnecessary chances by being loud & smoke Dope which was very quickly alerting the soldiers they were fighting & that gave them the element of surprise.
I'm certain that there were soldiers in every Army/Air Force who fully qualify as heroes but never got recognised because of being pushed aside by those who desired to be seen as heroes at all costs !

The US did not resort to using nuclear weapons in
Vietnam for a variety of reasons, fear of the damage
it would cause to the US's international reputation,
domestic political considerations, a reluctance to
break the "tradition" of non-use and a realization that
although there were plenty of viable targets such as
airfields, ports, and supply lines, only extensive use
of nuclear weapons would be likely to have a decisive
military impact.

Added to this was a strong opposition on moral grounds
from key figures such as Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara and President Johnson's concern at the long term
consequences of the use of such weapons.

A 1966 CIA Memorandum for the Director came out strongly
against the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam for a
variety of reasons - principle among them were that there
"would be widespread and fundamental revulsion that the US
had broken the 20 year taboo on the use of nuclear weapons".

Dear Foxy,

You are right in that it was the era of the civil rights movement. However, the greatest advance in civil rights was due to Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights Act. Lyndon Johnson knew that the Democratic Party would lose the south, and they did with Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ which appealed to the white, racist power structure in that part of the country. Johnson's sponsoring the act was apparently due to moral conviction. Nixon was responsible for the horrible bombing of Cambodia which had largely been free of war although the Ho Chi Minh trail ran through part of it. Both Johnson with the Civil Rights Act and Nixon with the Environmental Protection Agency and the opening to China did good things for the US in spite of their carrying on the war. I can’t see anything redeeming about Trump.

I don’t know what the audience at Woodstock took to heart. They retreated from the reality of the war and racial inequality to a festival replete with crap drugs and crap music. I saw nothing good about it. A lot of them followed the philosophy of Timothy Leary who popularized the catchphrase that promoted his philosophy, "turn on, tune in, drop out".

I was concerned that my two sons would be drawn into the war. Although the older one was opposed to the war he would have gone if called as he told me, “I don’t want to miss the experience of my generation.” The war ended before they were old enough to go.

Dear David,

I'm glad that your sons did not have to go to Vietnam.

Sons of our friends sons were called up. One being a doctor
delivered babies in a helicopter. It's an experience
he won't talk about to this day.

The other - came back mentally unstable. He never
recovered when his mates head ended up in his lap.

cont'd ...

Sorry for the typo.

I meant to say that our close friends sons were drafted.

Mr Opinion said- "But both were split on the type of political system they should have: Communist or democratic. They were both split into North and South to resolve the problem but in the Cold War era they became the battlefields for a wider global conflict between the US and the USSR. Does that help in understanding what had happened?"

Answer- Thanks for the clarification Mr Opinion. Your explanation was interesting.

It seems that we are in for further "splits" in the future. However it seems that so called "Liberal Democracy" as it gets larger begins to seem more like communism. Both Communism and Locke Liberalism believe in the Tabula Rasa paradigm. Perhaps Locke was part of the road which led to Marx. This indicates perhaps that the future wars will be between Localism and Globalism/ Traditionalism and Liberalism.

After all Marx did say that all roads lead to Communism.

This is interesting...

The Paris Commune (French: Commune de Paris, pronounced [kɔmyn də paʁi]) was a radical socialist, anti-religious, and revolutionary government that ruled Paris from 18 March to 28 May 1871.

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

This seems to be one of the very early Communist governments and earliest uses of Communist tactics.

It seems that history does repeat itself

Dear Canem Malum,

It was not so simple as a split between Communism and democracy. What the US called the Free World included many dictators. There was an endemic racism in the US. After the Hungarian revolt the US admitted many Hungarians to the United States. After Vietnam split into north and south many Vietnamese fled from the dictatorship of the north. The US was far less eager to let them in then they were to let the Hungarians in. The US supported dictators such as that of Duvalier in Haiti. Ho Chi Minh who fought the Americans with the aid of the communists was an admirer of Thomas Jefferson.

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/ho-chi-minh-thomas-jefferson/

If the United States had really been interested in democracy it would have supported Ho Chi Minh setting up a democratic state as he had democratic tendencies rather than supporting the French puppet regime in South Vietnam under Bao Dai and later Diem.. The US became involved in the Vietnamese War helping the French maintain their colonial empire. North Vietnam in desperation turned to the communists and became a communist dictatorship.

North Vietnam was invaded by communist China in 1979 as the communist Chinese were enemies of Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War#:~:text=Chinese%20forces%20entered%20northern%20Vietnam%20and%20captured%20several,victory%20in%20the%20last%20of%20the%20Indochina%20Wars.

The communist world was split. The Soviet supported North Vietnam and the communist Chinese opposed them. If the USA had really been interested in democracy it would have supported North Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh setting up a democratic state rather than supporting the French puppet government of South Vietnam.

Vietnam now has friendly relations with the US. It could have had friendly relations all along had the United States supported their anti-colonial aspirations and Ho Chi Minh's democratic tendencies.

Real heroes are necessary, hangers-on 'experts' are not as aren't political hindsight commentators !
Many Vietnam war protesters didn't protest against the war itself so much, they protested to get out of having to pull their weight ! The Goaf & Co only won the '72 election because they offered the hangers-on a way out of serving in the forces ! Nothing whatsoever to do with principle or integrity !
No different now where they have no regard for those who provide jobs but greedily demand welfare !
I recall returned soldiers being treated like dirt by the hangers-on.

One thing that should be realized is the immense hypocrisy in international relations. People may fight, kill and die for slogans not reality. The Cold War was not democracy against communism. The Cold War was the United States and its allies versus the Soviet Union and its allies. The United States posed as the champion of democracy but supported dictators as long as they were anti-Soviet. The Soviet Union posed as the champion of anti-colonialism but was itself a patchwork of colonies inherited from the former Russian Empire. At the conclusion of the Cold War the Soviet Union imploded, and the colonies were free. The US is still struggling within to attain democracy.

david f,
Very good explanation. As for "The US is still struggling within to attain democracy", I can't honestly see how that can ever be achieved, just as I can't see true Democracy actually working as a whole.
Every country is now too mixed with different people of different views & values. There are too many people who simply will not allow harmony no matter what the cost !
Do you think that hardline Islamists for example will ever cease from the quest to conquer all ?
I don't think so just as don't think greed can ever be made extinct !
What could be achieved is to introduce teachings of integrity & responsibility. I'm utterly dismayed in learning that the Australian Constitution is not being taught in our schools. I'm utterly dismayed in the brainwashing of many decent youngsters by our intellectual echelon thus denying them to build a future for themselves before they even reach puberty !
Let's just look at the kind/quality of role models they are provided ? I sincerely hope that some young people manage to break loose from the Progressives' indoctrination tactics & start off on a new footing. People need to realise that new policies etc can take decades to fully develop so, all the now generation can do is to get hold of a tiny bit of integrity & lay the foundation for the next !
Watching the Italian TV series GOMORRAH it becomes painfully obvious how past policies have so miserably failed !

Dear Individual,

In my opinion neither hardline Islamists, fundamentalist Christians or believers in any religion are fit for democracy. However, it is essential for democracy to allow them to have their views, To resolve this contradiction it is necessary to have separation of religion and state.

Dear Individual,

I don't think hardline Islamists, fundamentalist Christians or believers in any religion are fit for democracy. However, it is necessary for democracy to allow them to hold their views. To resolve this contradiction we must have separation of religion and state. We also must have a vigorous unsegregated public school system which teaches critical thinking and encourages questioning.

dacid f,
I agree. I am of the view that only slightly enforced, for want of a better description, enlightenment is the only option to achieve this.
We now have it confirmed that indoctrination followed by lowering Uni entrance requirements followed by more indoctrination from indoctrinated teachers is the exactly wrong approach. Teaching must include drawing attention to inevitable failure for some, no matter how much their parents pay.
I'm utterly uneducated & perhaps it is because of that I see things from such a different point of view that the failings of general education become so visible.
I found that many are educated beyond the capability of even comprehending the degree of their eduction. This situation has brought us to a saturation educated society with very little competence or common sense.
We need proper role models not just some sporting or pop music heroes !
They think they're invaluable yet in realty a great number are a mere burden on the rest of us tax payers as most invariably end up on the public purse.
Anyone getting access to higher education should be required to be suitable not just because wanting to be 'educated' ! We need more professional or rather competent people in every field not just in Academia.

Hi DAVID F...

Ordinarily, I listen to everything you say as I believe you have much wisdom to share with us all. But you made one statement herein which I cannot allow passing, without contradiction.

That the US and its allies were 'beaten' in South Vietnam by Ho Chi Minh? As a Veteran myself, I state categorically, and with respect herein, you're wrong! The US lost the political will to fight, nor did they have the 'will' to militarily take on the North with those measures sufficient to defeat them even though they had those assets in-country to do so. Instead the US bombed Hanoi with conventional ordnance trying to limit damage to the civilian population and some of the historic infrastructure.

As a WWll veteran yourself, you must surely realise you can't prosecute a war with one hand tied behind you back, as the yanks tried to do in South Vietnam. Even WESTMORELAND was quoted as saying, give him a free hand, and he'll defeat the North in a week, even less? But we'll never know, will we? The US was defeated on the streets of Washington DC and other major Cities of their Allies, not 'in-country' and definitely not militarily

Dear o sung wu,

Of course had the US pursued the war with all the resources at its command they could have won. However, it would have been a monstrous act. It was bad enough that they were there in the first place. War like any other governmental pursuit is limited by available resources. Any country can only act with the resources available in the situation at hand. Victory in Vietnam was not necessary for the survival of the United States. With the resources they were allowed to use they were beaten. As a citizen of a democratic country Westmoreland should have realised that. If war is necessary for survival a country uses all its resources. Vietnam was a war of choice not a war of survival.

david f just said about the Vietnam War:

"Of course had the US pursued the war with all the resources at its command they could have won."

I don't think so. The reason the US withdrew its troops from Vietnam was because it came to the conclusion that the war was unwinnable.

The US gave up trying to fight an enemy that would not take to the field and engage in a conventional war that the US was used to fighting.

Hi (again) DAVID F...

I do agree with you, we, the US and her allies should never have been in South Vietnam in the first place.

One of my enduring memories I'll take to my grave, we set an ambush using Claymores and took out five Cong on this track through the bush. As was our orders the bodies are searched, and the guy I searched, had a tiny black & white photo of his wife, sister, or girlfriend smiling back at the camera, never knowing she'll never see him again? I was 22 years and he was probably younger. He was younger than me, Viet Cong, not an NVA regular, just defending his homeland I guess?

o sung wu,

You were in Vietnam to stop the Vietnamese people from creating a nation-state.

How does that make you feel? Do you think it was the right thing to do?

Hi there Mr OPINION...

I was in the ARA (a regular) and 22 years of age. Not being all that bright, or politically worldly, I didn't understand all the various arguments or nuances associated with our presence in S.V. When we're repatriated home, we arrived at Perth in the middle of the night in a chartered TAA DC 6B Prop. driven A/C. We were told to dress in civvies, preparatory to landing in Mascot Airport in Sydney later. There was a large crowd to greet us together with a substantial number of demonstrators, it's only then, most of us realised the depth of resentment some people felt over our involvement in the war.

What none of us appreciated were assertions we were baby killers and rapists. We were soldiers, under very strict controls by our Officers, nothing more.

It's nigh impossible to assert what's right & more-so, morally right at the time of engaging/doing the things we do or are asked to do.
However, I'm certain that what the so-called progressives are doing & advocating lately & now is wrong & will be proven to be wrong not all that far down the track.
The wrongs of the Whitlam years are a perfect example. The most striking are the removal of National Service & willy nilly education which has resulted in the over-supply of irresponsible common sense devoid hangers-on over the past 35-40 years !

o sung wu,

I'm not picking on you because I know that the soldiers who were sent to Vietnam had been misled by the politicians, bureaucrats and business people who are the ones who should be held account for Australia's involvement in a war aimed at preventing the rise of a Vietnamese nation-state.

I think it was wrong to try to prevent Vietnam from creating a nation-state. Would you agree?

Of course the United States could have won in Vietnam. The US could have nuked Hanoi. What was left of North Vietnam would have then sued for peace. As it was they didn't, and I am glad of that.

david f,

You sound like a mathematician:

"Give 'em a good old nukin' boys. That'll fix the bastards!'

david f - Mr Diplomacy.

public school system which teaches critical thinking and encourages questioning.
david f,
Well, looks like we have to wait for the international borders to open so we can get suitably qualified teachers in.

pseudo-individual,

Yes, and Scotty and the boys are trying their hardest to force the borders open so that they can start bringing those millions of cashed up Chinese migrants into the country we need to kick start the economy, coronavirus and all.

And, before I forget ...... A big Aussie "Ni hao mate!" to you too.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

I couldn't agree more with you. National Service instilled some much needed moral as well as some social responsibility into many of these young blokes who were required to do their National Service for two years. If you were a conscious objector, like some were, the Medical Corps was more than happy to accommodate their beliefs.

As a retired copper, I strongly believe, if we had some form of mandatory National Service, not necessarily military if the candidate was morally against military service, but something for the benefit of the entire Nation, and operating on the same model of self, and institutional discipline, as the military, I reckon we'd not have nearly as much youth crime on the streets. Just my opinion is all.

Hi there Mr OPINION...

You say it was wrong to try to prevent Vietnam from creating a Nation-State? Honestly, I don't know? What I do know, there were many in the South who wished to remain non-communist and the advance of troops from the North greatly threatened their safety and independence.

o sung wo,
thank you, you've just given me another idea. Unemployed 18+ year olds could spend time with real life services such as collecting drug needles, help picking up dead drug users, attend cleaning up road accident sites, help wherever basic help is needed. I'm certain that some of them would actually come up with brilliant solutions & find a calling in some circumstances.
As I have stated here before, young people don't need to waste time on work experience, they must experience work ! They can serve in any field they choose & after proving they're suitable they must be encouraged to further themselves.
We need to rebuild our society & become more caring & responsible !

Dear o sung wu,

The US Constitution was set up to prevent whoever headed the country from involving the country in war on his own. Unless there is a domestic insurrection, an attack on the US, a treaty obligation or a declaration of war by Congress US troops are not to be sent into action. The presidents who did this should have been impeached as violating the basic law of the land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#:~:text=For%20the%20United%20States%2C%20Article%20One%2C%20Section%20Eight,nor%20does%20the%20Constitution%20itself%20use%20this%20term.

“The last time the United States formally declared war, using specific terminology, on any nation was in 1942, when war was declared against Axis-allied Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, because President Franklin Roosevelt thought it was improper to engage in hostilities against a country without a formal declaration of war. Since then, every American president has used military force without a declaration of war.”

The war in Vietnam was authorized by the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which was based on the lie that the North Vietnamese made an unprovoked attack. The US Navy had been attacking North Vietnamese installations even though we were supposedly at peace with North Vietnam. The resolution was a result of a North Vietnamese attack which was provoked by the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution#:~:text=The%20Gulf%20of%20Tonkin%20Resolution%20or%20the%20Southeast,in%20response%20to%20the%20Gulf%20of%20Tonkin%20incident.

“Out of the hope of provoking such an incident, Johnson ordered the Maddox to continue to cruise off the coast of North Vietnam, to be joined by another destroyer, USS Turner Joy with orders "to attack any force that attacks them".[42] Both destroyers were ordered to sail 8 miles from North Vietnam in waters that Americans asserted were international waters, disregarding North Vietnam's claim to the 12-mile limit.[42] The Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, ordered his staff to "pull together" the resolution Bundy had written in May-June, just in case Johnson decided to submit it to Congress.[42] On 3 August 1963, the South Vietnamese in their Swift boats raided Cape Vinhson and Cua Ron.[43] The cruise of the American destroyers was not directly connected to the raid, but Herrick knew from reading the summaries of decrypted North Vietnamese radio messages that the North Vietnamese believed that it was.

continued

continued

Herrick received orders to "show the gauntlet" and prove to the North Vietnamese that the Americans would sail off North Vietnam in waters that the Americans insisted were international waters.”

The US really did not care about the fate of the Vietnamese people. After Vietnam split into north and south with Ho Chi Minh’s government in the north and a US supported puppet government in the south many Vietnamese (mainly Catholic) fled the north for the south preferring the US puppet government to the communist government in the north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Passage_to_Freedom

The US based a propaganda campaign on this movement. However, much more sympathy was shown to the Hungarians who fled Hungary at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956#:~:text=Hungarian%20Revolution%20of%201956.%20Jump%20to%20navigation%20Jump,lasting%20from%2023%20October%20until%2010%20November%201956.

“On Sunday, 28 October 1956, as some 55 million Americans watched Ed Sullivan's popular television variety show, with the then 21-year-old Elvis Presley headlining for the second time, Sullivan asked viewers to send aid to Hungarian refugees fleeing from the effects of the Soviet invasion. Presley himself made another request for donations during his third and last appearance on Sullivan's show on 6 January 1957. Presley then dedicated a song for the finale, which he thought fitted the mood of the time, namely the gospel song "Peace in the Valley". By the end of 1957, these contributions, distributed by the Geneva-based International Red Cross as food rations, clothing and other essentials, had amounted to some CHF 26 million (US$6 million in 1957 dollars), the equivalent of $54,600,000 in today's dollars.[202] On 1 March 2011, István Tarlós, the Mayor of Budapest, made Presley an honorary citizen posthumously, and a plaza located at the intersection of two of the city's most important avenues was named after Presley as a gesture of gratitude.”

I feel sadness for those who fought, killed, suffered and died on both sides of that rotten, illegal war.

Thank you once again DAVID F. You knowledge and scholarship never ceases to amaze me. And I accept everything you said in your most recent explanatory note as being factual and true, so I'd never dare to debate you on any of it.

Being soldiers, all we were told prior to embarkation, we were there to prevent the Communist North Vietnamese from pushing down into South Vietnam, very much against their wishes and interests, nothing more. Whether we were brainwashed by our superiors I've no idea? The only thing I do know now; is we should never have been there in the first place. Possibly saving the lives of at least 504 good Australian soldiers.

Thank you DAVID F for taking the time and energy, to bother to explain these things to me, facts that I've never previously known, and as a Veteran, I think the whole damn campaign should've been far better explained to us all. With more detail and facts, thus at least we'd know the reason(s) why we were being sent over there, in the first instance.

Dear o sung wu,

Thanks for the compliments, but scholarship is something much deeper than my posts. I appealed to my memory, but I didn’t doublecheck the sources of my memory. I merely remembered things I knew in the past without rechecking. I cited Wikipedia rather than going to the sources of the Wikipedia article. What I posted may be entirely accurate. However, the Wikipedia article may not be accurate as it may have mangled the material. My memory may not be great as I will be 95 this month. What I told you may be entirely factual, but I did not do the work a scholar would do. A scholar would have access to the sources for the Wikipedia article rather than Wikipedia, and I don’t have access to the sources. The sources for the Wikipedia article may be secondary material rather than original.

What I wrote is true to the best of my knowledge, but the best of my knowledge may not be good enough

"A former top firefighter claims he and 22 emergency services chiefs were 'fobbed off' by Prime Minister Scott Morrison when they penned a chilling warning about impending bushfires and catastrophic weather in Australia months ago.
david f,
Do fire chiefs need to get the ok from a PM to fight fires ? If so, why don't we rid ourselves of all chiefs & managers altogether & whenever trouble is brewing we just ring the PM for the go-ahead ?
I'd have thought that fire chiefs make on-the-spot decisions, divorced from bureaucrats & politicians !

Dear Individual,

The job of any executive is more than making on the spot decisions. It is also preparing for eventualities, The fire chiefs accurately predicted the eventuality of the fires. However, fire chiefs do not have funds at their disposal to order the equipment needed for the anticipated tasks. They had neither funds nor man power to order preparations such as building access roads through the forests. For that they needed the cooperation of government. Without such cooperation they were powerless to take the necessary actions. By ignoring them Morrison neither saw that necessary equipment was purchased nor necessary preparations made. The forest fires need not have done the damage they did,

david f,

But at least Scott Morrison got to spend Xmas 2019 in Hawaii.

Nero 'fiddled' while Rome burned. But at least he was smart enough to make sure he was well away from Rome when it happened.

A bit like Scott Morrison.

Who said history doesn't repeat itself?

Hi (again) DAVID F...

Despite your veritable modesty and the fact you're ninety-five years of age, I'd back your memory and version of events, far more so than my own. And I'm (only) nearly eighty years. I would say positively, you would be the smartest most intelligent contributor on this Site. Moreover, you never brag about it, which I find so refreshing and compelling about your character. I may not agree with you, but I'll always take close notice of what you say, knowing there's much wisdom, as well as facts, contained in your narrative. DAVID F you're one of a kind Sir, and I admire you greatly, even though I might not agree with your strategic position on some matter or other.

o sung wu,

That's because he is a mathematician.

Hi MR OPINION...

Thank you for that Mr O. Obviously, he's very intelligent, and a widely read individual, far far, smarter than me. I spent most of my working life in the military, and later, over 32 years in the police force, 'til I retired. So short of the simple arithmetical computations you need to use throughout one's life before the advent of electronic calculators took over, that was my limit I'm afraid. Thank you for your advice, I appreciate it.

He's also a computerologist.

The fire chiefs accurately predicted the eventuality of the fires.
david f,
Then why on Earth did they not back-burn in time if they had the time to do it ? In the back of my yard the bush started to dry out back in June.
I asked the local fire warden if they could please burn so the next burn in the real dry season will lack severity. They burnt & a couple of weeks ago when the 'big fires' went through, no damage occurred.
We, I & the firies did it all without calling the PM. Admittedly, we don't have the moron experts who won't allow back-burns like down South & let the fuel build up to an unmanageable state & then all hell brakes loose & then blame the PM.
I know you have a duty to defend the experts but please don't blame the PM if it's the experts who are failing us all. If funds are the problem then they'd better get more competent people who can manage without constant funding demands. Sort of like most practical people are doing !

Dear Individual,

I have no duty to defend experts and do not know why they didn't take particular actions. My original post contained "Greg Mullins, the NSW Fire & Rescue commissioner from 2003 until 2016, and almost two dozen heavyweights sent a letter to Mr Morrison in April demanding an urgent meeting."

Mullins who headed the group was no longer the NSW Fire & Rescue commissioner and could only warn. Since he was no longer the NSW Fire & Rescue commissioner he had no authority to do anything.

pseudo-individual,

All Soot Morrison was interested in at the time was organising his holiday in Hawaii.

"Can someone please stop those pesky firefighters from ringing me all the time. Don't they know I'm off to Hawaii? Tell 'em if anything happens while I'm away then I'll catch up with them at Cobargo - they love me down there."

David f,
doesn't that scenario clearly show that we need people who can make decisions when decisions need to be made ? Not bureaudroids too scared about getting a rap over their knuckles for taking preventative action/decisions but not too scared about fires getting out of control ?
Such heroes are necessary unlike the parading ones under whose watch half the country burnt out of control !
We also need people in the various authorities who stand up for such heroes when the swamp people come down on them like a load of bricks for doing what needs to be done because the swampies aren't doing their jobs !

Dear Individual,

I'm afraid such heroes as you want are in short supply. I doubt that there will ever be many of them.

David F said-

"It was not so simple as a split between Communism and democracy. What the US called the Free World included many dictators. There was an endemic racism in the US. After the Hungarian revolt the US admitted many Hungarians to the United States. "

Answer-

Endemic racism in the US?- overall I think that most countries/ ethnicities/ cultures are more "racist" or bigoted than the US. Accusations of US racism stem more from projective ideology. Everybody is probably racist according to literal definition- if not the usual definition- but the perspective that it is wrong to be racist is another thing. If it is a choice between racism and globalist tyranny- perhaps racism is the better philosophy- it's probably less bigoted than demanding that everyone follow the same principles.

David F being of Hebrew ethnicity perhaps is more sensitive to "so called racism" than the general population. Hebrew's rightly have their own interest to consider just as any other cultural group. If this is racism- so be it.

Hopefully different ethnicity's and culture's can learn to stay on their own sides of the fence and not interfere with other communities. Then there will be more peace in the world. Human's unrestrained nature seems to have failed us up to this point. There needs to be a balance between stability and change and between freedom and restraint- Blank Slate Theory is extreme change. Most people just want to be left alone to live with their kinfolk.

The history of the world is the history of ethnic and cultural conflict.

Many use the concept of RACISM as a weapon for UNIVERSALISM.

Communist Universalists use Salami Tactics

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

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

"It was commonly believed that the term salami tactics... was coined in the late 1940s by Stalinist dictator Mátyás Rákosi to describe the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party in its ultimately successful drive for complete power in Hungary. Rákosi claimed he destroyed the non-Communist parties by "cutting them off like slices of salami."... By portraying his opponents as fascists (or at the very least fascist sympathizers), he was able to get the opposition to slice off its right-wing, then its center, then most of its left-wing, so that only fellow travellers willing to collaborate with the Communist Party remained in power."

My own observations showed me that those those bleating racism are in fact the racists !

Dear david f,
My personal observations over many years of working & socialising with people far more educated than I could ever be are thus;
Education without the brains to have common sense was/is a recipé for the disaster we're experiencing now.
Educated people with no common sense are governed by ego. Those who have all the ingredients are in fact those whom we hardly ever hear of. They're professionals, researchers, engineers etc.
The former are mainly & en-masse in the Public Service where their qualifications only matter on one occasion, during the job interview !
I think the free (higher) education was terribly wrong as it loaded or rather burdened our society with people who are not contributing as much as they take ! This dreadful situation was never in the sights for remedy as it was propped up precariously by the threat of the Domino effect. It is biting us in the back-sides right now !

Dear individual,

I think free higher education is great. We disagree on that and disagree on so many other things that I feel further discussion is pointless.

To David F and Individual-

Prior to the 1860's engineering skills were developed under apprenticeship on railway engines.

Apparently university engineering courses have evolved from the 1860's to the 1980's with increasing theory and decreasing lab time- now the view is that graduating engineers have inadequate experience and senior technicians and machinists and draftsmen are now perhaps better qualified for engineering jobs.

Perhaps the same can be said for university liberal arts courses and their role as creating leaders of society in the "art of learning to be free".

This seems to support Individual's view of the value that university graduates provide to society.

However I do empathize with David F in his view- even though I believe it is incorrect.

To me the issue comes down to loyalty of universities to their culture and nation that pays and supports them in favor of universalism.

Universities are not loyal- they need a broom.

I think free higher education is great.
david f,
So do I & I'm all for it however, educating the not so bright at great expense with no potential in sight is stupid !

All the politicians that the Leftists abhor are educated also ! So, still a good thing to educate anyone for free ?
Who has the most to gain by that system ? The lectures of course ! And, who has to suffer these educated fools ? Us, the taxpayers !

Unfortunately I don't remember the details, as it was more than a decade ago. But I did hear (on the radio, I think) about an organization dedicated to eliminating the five causes of war. Apparently one of them has already been eliminated,

Aidan,

Probably the use of rocks as weapons.

Joe

Many appear to be having a problem with what an engineer is.

I am a degree engineer. I specialised in heat & hydraulics, which I used to understand the flow behavior of thermo plastics when being injection molded or extruded into products. This enabled me to design the tools required to do these jobs to the best of the materials ability.

I never touched any tool bigger than a pencil, but it enabled me to have a some input into the develop of engineering plastics here & in the USA.

I then went motor racing. I was fortunate to meet & be greatly helped by an accountant. He had no engineering or mechanical training, but with his private study & ability to understand motors, was one of the best racing motor developers in Oz. He taught me how to build a racing engine that would not only win races, but be totally reliable in the 60s, when reliability was very difficult to achieve.

I was now a competent mechanic.

However when I needed to manufacture a new part for an engine or transmission, I sometimes had a play with something not too serious. However if it was a critical part, requiring really fine tolerances, it was a toolmaker mate who took over the lathe or mill.

Were my mates engineers, mechanics or tradesmen to you, I guess that depends on your schooling & attitude, but one thing is sure, none of us cared a dam what you called us, as long as it was not late for lunch.

Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil),

So obviously you reckon one must have a degree to be an engineer.

I disagree.

And I'm sure great engineers like James Watt, Robert Stephenson and Isambard Kingdom Brunel would agree with me. Because none of them had a degree and they are some of the most famous engineers in history.

A person can still become an engineer with or without a degree and I would guess that half the world's engineers do not have a degree.

So SL West it looks like you, me and plenty of others have wasted 4 years of our life studying for a degree that we didn't really need to get to be an engineer.

Oh and let's not forget Frank Whittle.

Being a pilot you would be well acquainted with the work of the world famous aircraft engineer Sit Frank Whittle.

Yes SL West, I'm sorry to break the bad news to you but dear old Frank didn't have a degree either but that didn't stop from single handedly designing a silly little thing called a TURBOJET ENGINE.

Next time you're up in wild blue yonder zipping through the clouds in your imaginary fighter jet Squadron Leader West how about sparing a little thought for the guy who put you there.

Misopinionated,

So, the truth is that you don't have any sort of degree in anything at all ? Or TAFE qualifications ?

That makes some sense.

Joe

I worked with computers before there was such a discipline as computer science so I do not have a degree in computer science. I have designed computers, programmed computers and developed systems for computers. When I designed computers we were given rules of thumb such as devote 10% of the circuitry to error checking. Now there is such a discipline as computer science those who design computers, program computers and develop systems know far more than I ever knew.

There were great engineers in the past without a degree in engineering as I worked on computers without a degree in computer science. However, engineering in the present is much better since it has developed into a discipline with the awarding of a degree once one has demonstrated success in learning what is required. One area that has developed since the day of Isambard Kingdom Brunel is safety. I am sure the death and injury rate on his projects were horrendous. Protective gear and other safety developments have been furthered since the days of Brunel. A worker engaged on an engineering project currently has a much better chance of survival than a worker on one of Brunel’s projects.

Intelligence is not a constant. Exercising one’s mind can increase it. The mental discipline involved in study and learning develops our mind. Study allows us the full expression of our rational nature. In appreciating philosophical or scientific truths and incorporating them in our own knowledge, we are reaching the peak of what it is to be human.

David,

A very interesting post; the only thing that I really know about early computers is their sheer size, what once filled a large room can now be carried in one's pocket.
A friend of mine many years ago was the computer man for the then Bank of NSW and their computer filled a fairly large room.

What you might find interesting/amusing was that when they were setting it up they had an intermittent problem where the computer would go haywire then have to be sorted out, the problem was traced to the service lift which passed up and down on the other side of one wall!!
How they overcame the problem I know not.

Is Mise,

They got a Lift Engineer to fix the problem.

Tighten a few screws here, a little bit of oil in bearings over there, and a few yanks with the shifting spanner, and whammo! no more problems.

The Lift Engineer got a bit of grease on his overalls but nothing a good wash couldn't take care of.

The lift and the computer were as good as new all thanks to the engineer.

The moral of the story: We need our lift engineers just as much as we need our computers. It's a symbiosis.

A Certificate (Degree) is confirmation that a person has satisfied others that they understand the basics of a particular field. I recall talking with a TAFE lecturer who was obliged to pass every student in his Coxwain class. When I asked him if one of them were to run a boat onto a reef & spill the passengers into the sea, would this reflect on the lecturer & make him responsible to pass that student because a Govt official told him he had to pass him ?
He replied "That's why we deem them competent at the time of the exam".
I have worked alongside & with Engineers & I have lost count how many times the Tradies & labourers had to find solutions to make things work. Just as we had engineers who had everything worked out before the work began and, it all worked !
There are people who have spent years remembering what someone has taught them & there are people who think of a solution on the spot.

pseudo-individual,

Spot on! That's just how the world works.

My engineering degree is useless when it comes to doing the job. I've probably used less than 5% of the stuff I was taught. Absolute waste of time studying for an engineering degree.

The real skills are learnt on the job and for that reason a person without a degree in engineering can become an engineer through practice.

The famous engineers of the industrial revolution became engineers through practice. James Watt, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford never had a degree in engineering.

I worked once with a guy who had Bachelor, Masters and PhD in engineering but in the workplace he just couldn't match the engineers and draftsmen who acquired their skills through practice. Last I heard he ended up spending the rest of his life in a lab testing how strong bricks are. I suppose it was that or picking fly sh!t out of pepper for a living.

Troubleshooting engines and processes and people are specialist skills. Many people- even those that should know better- try to solve the problem before understanding it and establishing a baseline.

Hasbeen seems to understand that you get capabilities by engaging in interesting projects and working with interesting "doers"- I like his philosophy.