We've seen the recent strife that the royals
caused with the Oprah interview. We've seen
the dignified and moving funeral service of
Prince Philip. Questions arise about the
Queen's continued reign. Is it time for our
country to consider having its own head-of state?
Or should things be left as they are?

Not as long as we can't manage to produce anything resembling politicians with nuance !

And, voters with nuance to support them !

Foxy

Shouldn't you instead be considering what are the legitimate limits of government power, instead of supporting totalitarian fascism in Australia and squarking the slogans your manipulators have brainwashed into you?

Hi Foxy,

Republicanism, and therefore a President is not high on the political agenda in Australia, certainly not while the present monarch sits on the thrown in England, it may gain traction when the Queen departs. The thorny question is how that person becomes president. Electing a president US style popular vote, and given them sweeping powers aka a Trump is not ideal, in fact its disastrous. I favour the idea of a President elected by a 2/3 majority endorsement of a joint sitting of a new Parliament, a person nominated by the prime minister and seconded by the opposition leader, in that way an ex-politician is unlikely to be acceptable. Such a person should have clearly defined but limited constitution powers.

Dear Foxy,

We could not be more fortunate as things stand today, having a benevolent monarch that lives far away, beloved from a distance with no interest in disturbing our lives. May God bless the Queen!

We've all heard the pros and cons of the Republic debate.
That the head of our country (our head of state) is
currently the British Queen. That the head of our
country should live here and be proud to be Australian.
That anyone who holds public office in Australia should be
an Australian citizen with loyalty and allegiance first
and foremost to Australia.

That it's wrong that an Australian can't be head of Australia
and that we have no say in who is. That Australia should be
fully independent and not subject to a foreign monarch.

Well on the other side of the coin - we know that the Queen
is Queen of Australia. That she does not interfere in our
affairs. That she listens to and goes by the advice of our
own PM. And that this constitutional monarchy has worked
well for us for decades. And that changing things could be
a disaster.

I also feel that things won't change until after the
Queen dies. Most people have other priorities on their
plate at the moment. And most don't want things to change.

But I could be wrong.

One thing is for sure - before making any changes - we need to
ensure that what we shall put in place will be better than
what we have currently. Otherwise - why do it?

Yes we should be a republic like say Democratic Republic of Congo, if we are totally stupid. Now there is a republic we could emulate, if we are stupid enough to think that the banner "REPUBLIC" has some meaning.

Changing a constitution is bound to have any number of unforeseen consequences, all of them bad.

Sorry Foxy, but only a fool starts this gumph about head of state being a local. That sort of argument is only to fool the stupid into going along with the crazy. We have the safest form of government & the only possible reason to change is to allow someone like Turnbull, Albanese or god forbid, Penny Wong to fulfill ther dreams of grandeur.

No Thanks.

People just don't think ! Just take a look at all the Republics around the place & see how they're functioning & then tell us you still want a Republic !

The PM's in trouble politically and becoming a republic is well known as a distraction issue. So it may well be the time, but it won't save him.

China, the greatest threat since Nazi Germany
The China virus
The increasing threat to our liberties
Talk of a vaccine passport
Cancel Culture
Race baiting
Man hating
Sexual perversion
Failing education system
Failing health system
Identify politics
Government debt:

Just a few off the top. But, not satisfied, a Leftist troll wants a "conversation" about a republic. Bloody hell!

We are an independent nation but we share a monarchy
with the United Kingdom and many other countries.
The Queen's powers are delegated to the Governor
General by the Constitution.

But by convention the Governor General can act only on
the advice of the elected government. Except of course
the elected government and Prime Minister were deposed
by the Governor General (Kerr) in the case of Gough Whitlam.

How do you feel about Denmark's constitutional
monarchy? Do you admire it?

Australia must become a republic when the Queen passes on. The thought of having her disastrous son, as King of Australia is totally repugnant, He was the man who was already having an affair when he married Princess Dianna . Remeber her famous words " There are three of us in this marriage" . We do not want him. We must become a republic.

AS for who is head of state? We can elect a governor general as one option .We are unlikely to make the same mistake that the American did in electing Donald Trump, as we do not have the same divisive party system as does the United States . We also do not have the same history of a war of independence or of an internal civil war . We are a less divise people where "I am as good as the next man, mate!"

Australia will win out even more if it becomes a republic

As far as I can tell no proposal has been put forward
that betters what we already have. It stands to reason
that if we're going to remove what we have we've got
to replace it with a better system which is more
effective in keeping politicians from abusing their
position.

Elect a President and you install another power centre.
That is the major problem and the cause of countless revolutions around the world.
Paul's alternative is a possible but means that someone who never was
anybody and is probably an unknown gets the job. Q ? Whose puppet ?
The Govenor General can dismiss the government if he believes the
government is acting illegally; note Kerr consulted a High Court judge
if I remember correctly. The government was borrowing without
Executive Council permission from Kemlani an Arab weapons dealer.

Why have a head-of-state at all? Isn't a head of government enough? Do we need another snout at the public trough?

The Governor-General is the Queen's representative in
Australia. If we want to change this - then we need to
become a Republic. We are an independent nation except for
the fact that -
we share a monarchy with the UK and many other countries
including Canada and New Zealand. The Queen's powers are
delegated to the Governor General by the Constitution.
But by convention the Governor General can act only on the
advice of the elected government.

Not included in my list of things more important than ratty republicanism was the sniping at the 'reasonable doubt' and 'innocent until proven guilty' aspects of our justice system; pushed mainly by feral females in #metoo gangs, but disgracefully demonstrated by Scott Morrison in his recent tirade against our soldiers.

Wel, on that score, we hear this morning that our new Minister for Defence, Peter Dutton, has overturned the defence force paper general's decision to strip unit citations from 3,000 SAS soldiers.

Instead of chuntering on about republicanism, which is completely alien to a country to which many people have fled from republics, we should be trying to set what we have back on the right track.

I see some here that are personality focused, when the issue of Head of State in Westminster Government is Constitutional based and Elizabeth or Charles are merely a representative of that power in the Constitution. They hold no powers beyond their constitutional appointment. Charles; unlike Biden or Trump has no powers to make laws or give orders over Governing affairs. Our elected representatives run the Government of the people, The Governor General administers the Westminster constitution ensuring the Government governs within the principles of the Constitution, which is a document for the protection of the people.

The Governor General is the Queen's representative in
Australia. In practice the Governor General is
Australia's Head of State and has a range of
constitutional and ceremonial duties. The Governor
General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian
Defence Force.

The Governor General summons Parliament, sets out the
government's program, gives Royal Assent which makes
Acts of Parliament law. The Governor General signs
official documents and meets regularly with the PM and
government officials. The Governor General
appoints ministers, judges, ambassadors, issues writs
for elections, bestows Australian honours, and the list goes
on.

Under the Australian Constitution the only action
performed by the Queen is the appointment of the Governor
General (on the advice of the Australian PM).

...another snout at the public trough?
davidf,
Agree whole-heartedly ! Besides, Australians aren't sufficiently cohesive enough a society as yet to make such a risky move.
Better off biding time & using that time to work on a healthier, less gimme, gimme money orientated mentality ! After some positive progress towards that then well, bring up the subject of Republic again. However, I'm afraid an Australian Republic would be disastrous at this stage !
Bring this Nation back first !

The Honorable Dame Quentin Bryce, AD CVD was the
25th Governor General and the first woman to take
up the office. We're told that she brought 40 years
of experience in reform, community building and
leadership to the role.

Her biography is available on the web - and it is
impressive.

Geeze, just leave the friggin' thing alone - Gawd, we've been down this worn-out ol' track so many times for Ch**st sake! Take a leaf out of TTBN'S contribution, and turn our collective attention to something far more sinister and threatening - That of the looming menace of China and her designs on all of S.E. Asia. I was in Vietnam, and that was bad enough. Imagine for a moment what the military might of China might inflict upon us - It would make South Vietnam look like a schoolyard squabble.

.... what the military might of China might inflict upon us
o sung wu,
Yes, particularly when one considers the lack of interest & willingness of people to participate in defending the land they've been given the privilege to exist on in comfort, courtesy of the Taxpayers !

G'day there, INDIVIDUAL...

Yeah, mate, they just don't get it. We've more to worry about than a Republic. We should reintroduce National Service, strengthen our Air and Naval capacity and start training, training and training. Make no mistake; China is the greatest threat to us as Germany was to Europe all those years ago.

o sung wu,
That's why I won't waver from my much repeated statement that Australia's worst enemy is within !

You're not wrong about that, my friend! We've weakened our selves, from the classroom to the workplace, with the entire working population getting softer. In contrast, our potential enemies are becoming much more challenging and more resilient. At the same time, we just sit around and listen to our banal leadership drone on about matters that are of little consequence for the overall betterment of our nation.

individual,

Right. We are not in trouble because barbarians have breached the gates. Our own people have denigrated into barbarism and are taking down our civilisation from within. They still take the benefits provided by the people they hate, though.

Yes o sung wu, & one of the main problems is too many of the good ones have had enough. A number of the best we had in the navy got out, because they couldn't stand the woke garbage going on from the top down.

The rapid fermentation of the defense force is our undoing. It is bad enough that those with the ability & responsibility to run our ships are forced to make do with half trained, & often disinterested new "manpower" coming from recruit schools. Now with the big push to satisfy the feminists movement with more girls in uniforms, they are having to do with many females who can't understand the training, & never will. Most just don't have the aptitude to be able to understand the equipment they are expected to either use or worse, maintain.

Far too many recruits are pushed out of trade courses with the hope that they will learn on the job. This may have worked in the past, but today there are so few who know what they are doing, there are not enough to train these new chums.

On one occasion my son was telling me about the army catastrophes during a beach landing exercise, I said to him, "Thank god then, that we have the airforce". His reply, "Dad they are the ones who keep crashing their choppers onto our decks". God help us.

Rather than worry about a republic, we should be deciding who we want to surrender to.

I just read an article that the Queen may be
considering making Prince Charles her "Regent."
That is giving him the duties but not the title
of King as she will find it difficult to continue
without Prince Philip. So on her 95th Birthday
sh appparently is considering not abdicating -
but giving the bulk of her duties to Charles.
I wonder how he will feel about that? (not King
but Regent)?

And how will that work for the Commonwealth countries
like Australia?

Foxy, do not worry Charles is bound by the constitution, he is just a figurehead of a System that works well, not the power we would expect from a President. Compare the instability of America with that of England. Our instability comes from those that want a new Constitution with the powers of a President, this divides a nation politically

Hi Josephus,

I understand all that.

However, speaking as a wife, mother,
and grandmother - if I was in the Queen's position and
all of my life I had always been concerned about "doing
the right thing," I would abdicate and let my son who's
been a "king-in waiting" for so long - have his rightful
place and not just as "Regent."

That would be the "right"
thing to do. She's been the longest serving monarch -
and now turning 95 - and with the death of her husband -
let it go Your Majesty! Your son deserves better than
a "Regent's" position.

Am I wrong? No matter what people may think of the
man personally - Charles is the next in line to the
throne - and it's time he was given that inheritance.
He's earned it!

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I, personally, am not in favour of a hereditary head of state, nor of any form of nepotism, but if, by chance, a majority of Australians continues to be in favour of a hereditary head of state, I think we should, at least, specify in our federal constitution that such hereditary rights must be subject to a “Natural Born Citizen Clause” similar to that in the American Constitution (Article II, section 1) :

« No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States ».

Obviously, the wording of the American clause, which dates from 1789, should be slightly modified to update it and render it more precise and unambiguous for inclusion in our Australian federal constitution.

Nevertheless, if a majority of our compatriots prefers to continue to have a non-resident foreigner as our head of state, then so be it. But, in that case, I, personally, am inclined to consider that it would be more appropriate and in our best interests to have, say, a Kiwi, as our head of state rather than a Pom, as at present.

The Kiwis have always proven to be our staunchest, and most reliable “brothers in arms”. Of course, the Americans have been loyal and trustworthy allies too. But the Kiwis, in particular, understand our culture and share our core values better than anyone else on earth.

.

Hasbeen,

Perhaps our new Minister for Defence will be able to sort things out, if he is not blocked by our half-witted PM, who has only ever rubbished the ADF and refused to come to their defence until he was shamed into doing so. It amazes me that we still get young men willing to enlist to protect our shite society.

Far more important for the world than the really crap idea of Australia dumping the monarchy and huge piece of our history is the current talk of Germany following the UK out of the EU. The European Union is a real problem for the entire world, unlike Leftist hissy fits about the Crown.

We have allowed too many people become citizens of Australia who do not value or understand the Westminster system of Government. They want their own celebrity personality to govern, not one who governs for all. The Queen is one who represents all people, not a political party, and that is hard to grasp by some.

Currently the High Court of America is supposedly to represent the Constitution, but it is being loaded from 9 to 13 Judges to be political of the Party in power. It then has to be asked is the Constitution being read correctly or manipulated politically.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thanks for your input. We have countries like Ireland
and Germany who are parliamentary democracies and
according to the link given below -
nothing would change to our for the worse if Australia
was to become a Republic. It's suggested that we should
have a compulsory plebiscite asking two questions:
1) Do Australians want a Republic.
2) What method do they want in selecting a President.

http://www.theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759

Personally I find it useful to have someone other than the
head of government performing the trivial duties which
fall to a head of state. We currently have two heads-of-state - the Queen as the symbolic and the Governor General as the
Constitutional head of state. Still I think that the
people should decide - what they really want.

Now regarding Prince Charles?

There have been some suggestions that he may not
choose the name King Charles. He has the following
names - Charles, Philip, Arthur, George.
He may choose King George VII. Or King Philip, or
even King Arthur.

He has the example of King Edward VIII whose title was
Albert, but his family called him David.
There are unpleasant associations with
the name Charles with previous monarchs.
Charles I was the only member of the monarchy to be tried and
executed for treason. And his son Charles II - was known
for his legendary love life - who ruled during a particularly
nasty bout of the plague and the Great Fire of London.

Who knows what Prince Charles will choose.

Charley, my boy; oh, Charley, my boy
You thrill me, you chill me, with shivers of joy

And when we dance, I read in your glance
Whole pages and ages of love and romance
They tell me Romeo was some lover, too
But boy, he should have taken lessons from you

Sometimes I lay awake at night and I ask
"Where have I gone wrong?"

Then a voice says to me:

"This is going to take more than one night."

(Charlie Brown).

Twas on a Monday morning
Right early in the year
When Charlie came to our town
The young Chevalier

Charlie is my darling, my darling, my darling
Charlie is my darling, the young Chevalier

As he was walking doon the street
The city for to view
O there he spied a bonnie lass
The windae peekin'through

Charlie is my darling, my darling, my darling ...

Ahhh, those Charlies...

Foxy,

No it's not the right time to decouple from the British Commonwealth.

We need to retain the Queen as our Head of State because we may be on the path to a war with China and its allies.

Remaining a Dominion with the Queen as our War leader (which is what a HofS is for those who don't know anything about history and sociology like the shifty&shadyminister who by the way had my account on OLO suspended temporarily) will mean that we have the British Commonwealth as our ally.

And keep in mind the enemy is already inside the gates so we will be fighting on two fronts when war with China breaks out.

Mr 0,
We're not heading for a war with China. At most there will be economic sanctions.
And China itself is not the enemy, let alone the Chinese people here. It's President Xi who's the cause of all the trouble.

Nor would changing our head of state change who our allies are.

Mr O,

To ensure a genuine majority support for change
(or not) there should be a compulsory plebiscite
legislated by the government. Let the voters decide
if they want a Republic and what method of selecting
their government leader.

The threat of China is very real. However I'm
sure that our country and its allies, will be able
to deal appropriately with the problem as it has
done thus far.

We have allowed too many people become citizens of Australia who do not value...
Josephus,
Not only that but the people responsible have now been breeding the discontent for decades ! They have succeeded to garner support from the indigenous & all other Leftist lobbyists.
Labor are taken full advantage of this irrationality simply for votes without a thought of the eventual outcome !

G'day HASBEEN...

What a sorry but true picture you've drawn about the ability and content of our armed forces. With feminist insistence, each vessel, including Subs, has a complement of women on board, and each Tank in the Armoured Corps has a female driver and perhaps a Gay gun loader, and the RAAF has a percentage of female ADG's etc. etc. I'm so glad we didn't have any feminists in South Vietnam, particularly when outside the wire at the Dat!

Foxy,

Yes of course how silly of me not to see that everything is under control and that you will be able to keep China at bay.

Just like Britain and France kept Hitler from starting a war.

I'm sure that when China says it will invade Taiwan it means it will not invade Taiwan.

The old No means Yes routine in reverse.

Aidan,

Of course it's Xi who will start the war. Just like Hitler started WW2.

We all know that Germany stacked Hitler with a big lunch and bikkies and gave him a gun and pointed him towards the Polish border and as he passed through towns on the way people would rush out to wave to him and wish him farewell and would shout to him "Send us a postcard when you get there!"

Yes Aidan you are really really smart for working out that the war will be just Xi all alone against the millions.

Dear oh sung wu,

How's it going old cock. Good to see smoke signals still arising from your camp.

And good to see you have something to carry on about.

Women in the military huh? Well Abu Ghraib certainly showed women could mix it with the best of the war criminal so I'm not sure you have to worry about them taking a backward step on the proper professional soldiers stuff either.

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

“When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.”

Leonard P. Matlovich was a Vietnam War veteran — recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star — and the first gay service member to purposely out himself to the military.

I don't know mate but it seems he did his bit as most of them do.

http://www.der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/39-04-28.htm

From my understanding, Hitler started to get pi$$ed off after a Million Germans were starved to death, courtesy of the greed mongers outside of Germany.

individual,

Hitler was pissed off long before that.

You should try studying history. You might learn something.

You might learn something.
Mr Opinion,
On German history written by English speakers ? Very funny !

Individual,

Mate there is a bloody strong case that it was our own Billy Hughes who forced a dramatic tightening of the reparation costs on the German people, well above what other leaders had envisaged, which lead to the severe hardships and the rise of Hitler.

Hitler starts his speech off with appropriate references to mad politicians and Hughes was one of them.

“The document of Versailles has fortunately been set down in black and white for generations to come, for otherwise it would have been regarded in the future as the grotesque product of a wild and corrupt imagination. Nearly 115,000,000 people have been robbed of their right of self-determination, not by victorious soldiers, but by mad politicians, and have been arbitrarily removed from old communities and made part of new ones without any consideration of blood, origin, common sense or the economic conditions of life.”

He was one of the “horde of utterly stupid and ignorant people was let loose on humanity. “

But then Hitler and you slip into typical antisemitism.

“Jewish parasites, on the one hand, plundered the nation ruthlessly and, on the other hand, incited the people, reduced as it was to misery.”

People, particularly the ordinary working class can only be pushed so far !

.... you slip into typical antisemitism.
SteelRedux,
Although fairly well represented in the money-manipulating crowd, the Yiddish don't have the monopoly by a long shot. Drawing attention to that does not warrant terms such as anti-semitism.
I have witnessed greed by Australian white collar workers/bureaucrats that'd put many of the above to shame in degrees of severity !
My observations & experiences on that front make me shudder with dread should this Nation become a Republic too soon.

Hitler neither sought nor was he equipped to fight a world war. He rolled the dice one time too many (Poland) and blundered into war. It was the lack of a deterrent by the Western democracies that allowed him to stumble into WW11. See the similarities between then and now? Our "leaders" don't appear to get it.

Xi is still using low-risk strategies, as favoured by all totalitarians; but he could take a Hitlerian step-too-far any time now, and because there is AGAIN no deterrent, BOOM!

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Ah, don't worry too much. I was just blowing smoke, is all. Apropos women serving in combat roles, there's no doubt they're more than capable in mixing it when push comes to shove; it's just a case of appropriateness, is all I'm trying to say.

I've just finished reading a series of five books, commencing with 'Hitler's Girls' and ending with 'Hitler's Housewives', all by Tim HEATH, and published by a British Company, 'Pen & Sword', absolutely fascinating stuff! Broadly speaking, it deals with German women in WWII, their privations, valour and steadfastness while confronting a crumbling Third Reich under Hitler and his motley crew.

Any doubt concerning the ability of women to wage war or survive is completely dispelled. If we can work out a method to send them to you, I'll gladly loan you all five books. If not, try to source them yourself; you'll be utterly fascinated by the way German women waged war AND survived under appalling conditions while Hitler descent into madness.

Good Morning Folks,

It never fails to surprise the directions some of
our discussions take. That's what keeps them so
interesting. Welcome back O Sung Wu. I also am glad
to see you back to posting once again. Did you know that
Joe Lane (Loudmouth) passed away? That was quite a
shock for us all. I miss him very much. Also Big Nana
hasn't been posting for a while. I hope she's alright.

Now back to the topic. Here's a bit of
gossip from Hello magazine:

I read that Prince Philip's wish was to pass
on his title "Duke of Edinburgh" when it became
vacant to his youngest son - Edward.
Apparently Edward
is involved in Prince Philip's awards
for young people and
has been working very hard. But Prince
Charles wants that title and is not anxious
to give it to his younger brother. Charles apparently
wants it himself. It will be interesting to
see how all this pans out.

Surely Prince Charles will do well by his father's wishes?
One can only hope that Prince Charles will do the
right thing both by his father, and his brother.

Foxy, news of Belly, he has been in marginal health but is still
around and kicking. This is second hand info from one who knows him personally.

Hi Bazz,

So glad to hear about Belly.

Thank You.

I wish him All The Best!

.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

.

You wrote to Foxy (page 8 of this thread) :

« No, it's not the right time to decouple from the British Commonwealth. »

Foxy did not suggest that Australia should “decouple from the British Commonwealth”, Mr. Opinion.

Australia can become a republic and continue to remain an active member of the “British Commonwealth” (now known as the “Commonwealth of Nations”) without the slightest change or interruption.

As of 1 February 2021, 33 out of the 54 member states are now republics :

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

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Yes, I think the best solution will probably be to terminate our constitutional monarchy and establish an independent republic with the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, marking the end of what will have been, by far, the longest reign in the history of the British monarchy.

The nostalgia of British colonisation in our Brave New World has gradually abated with passing generations, as has the illusory, fairy tale image of an enchanted royal family emerging from its magnificent palace in a magical, horse-driven, golden carriage.

Repeated revelations of the harsh reality of the secret lives of members of the royal family have taken their toll. The ideology and glamour have lost much of their lustre and shine.

I think you’re right; the time is near when the butterfly will shed its chrysalis and spread its wings. Emancipation has been a long time coming, but I guess that’s what it takes to make a great nation in which the people have good reason to honour their past and are free to choose their future with hope and confidence.

.

Foxy,

The C of N is an alliance, one based on historical circumstances.

Without the British monarch as a H o S the alliance is meaningless if a major war breaks out.

Those recognising the British monarch as the H o S (= their war leader) will fight together; those that have broken away with their own H of S will probably fall away.

"The nostalgia of British colonisation".

What a load of BS! I've pretty much given up commenting on what other posters have to say; I don't read most of the leftist garbage at all. But, now and again, something really stupid comes up.

People can think what they like about the monarchy - I think King Charles the Third will be a disaster that will see even the Poms calling for an end to it all. William and the other junior members of the family are just lefty, go-with-the-tide, "progressives" and totally inconsequential idiots.

But to insult people who think differently from you by suggesting that
they are nostalgic for British colonisation is beyond the pale. Like it or not, our history, our past, is what enables lefty bigmouths and ignoramuses to be big-mouthed and ignorant in safety and in relative luxury not found in many republics.

Quite often these days I wonder why I bother to open OLO in the mornings, given the absolute nonsense sprayed around by, in particular, the likes of Foxy, Paul 1405, Steele Reflux and others who sneer at our country and our history. But then I think about other posters - whom I won't name in case I omit one or more - and I'm reminded that idiocy is in the minority, and it's a good thing to remain aware of the weirdos who are actually allowed to vote, and be consoled by the fact that the majority of Australians are not like them.

ttbn,

You should study history. You might learn something.

Mr. Opinion,

Sorry I left you off the left idiot list.

I might learn something from studying history? Well I have, and I did.

But, what about you and your 'claimed' studies? You have have clearly learned nothing - if you actually did get past primary school.

Dear o sung wu,

Thanks for the heads up on Tim Heath's book. I will check with the local library to see if they can source them for me and thanks for your kind offer.

I am half way through listening/watching Rollo Kingsford-Smith's interview he did for the Australian Wartime Film Archive initiative by the University of New South Wales. Well worth a viewing if you have the time.

http://australiansatwarfilmarchive.unsw.edu.au/archive/570-rollo-kingsford-smith

Quite astonishing to think of him sneaking Qantas pilots into Lancaster bombing training to get them up to speed. Well worth a listen.

As to women in combat have you heard about Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko? Russian sniper with 309 confirmed kills. There was a recent film about her life on SBS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

Or the Night Witches?

"Night Witches" was a World War II German nickname for the all female military aviators of the 588th Night Bomber Regiment, known later as the 46th "Taman" Guards Night Bomber Aviation Regiment, of the Soviet Air Forces. ... On October 8, 1941, an order was issued to deploy three women's air-force units, including the 588th Regiment. The regiment, formed by Raskova and led by Major Yevdokiya Bershanskaya, was composed primarily of female volunteers in their late teens and early twenties.

An attack technique of the night bombers involved idling the engine near the target and gliding to the bomb-release point with only wind noise left to reveal their presence. German soldiers likened the sound to broomsticks and hence named the pilots "Night Witches". Due to the weight of the bombs and the low altitude of flight, the pilots did not carry parachutes until 1944.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

Anyway mate I trust you are still fit enough to connect again in person with others this ANZAC day. Have a good one.

ttbn,

Oh Dear!

Do you realize that you are the one doing the "spraying"
in this discussion.

I realize that you enjoy "venting
your spleen" so to speak but what you're doing here is
making accusations that have no substance.

I am proud
of this country and have declared many times that I would
not want to live anywhere else. I am also hesitant about
making any changes to the type of government we currently have.

Also calling people names and making assumptions about people
you don't know lowers the bar in any debate. You need
some self-control. I'm sure you in real life are not the
person you present to us on this forum.

The ignoramus coming across here is YOU!

Try to do better - if you can. and please don't tell us
that you don't care what people think about you. If that was
the case - you would not keep responding "ad nauseum. "

Dear Banjo Paterson,

The fundamental barrier to building a mood for change
may be to actually educate the public about the way
our political system works.

We also have the matter of how a head of state should
be selected. This was the challenge that de-railed the
Republican cause decades ago.

Can the Royal family re-invent itself? At the same time
will a Republic fix the problems of the lack of separation
between executive and legislature, the overlap of
tiers of government? Do our democratic processes lack
the tools to deal with an integrated world where
Corporations, culture and commerce increasingly operate
across borders?

What the problem a Republic will fix?

Foxy,

I take it you've hear the expression 'rat with a gold tooth'. It sums up you and your pretentions very well.

ttbn,

No I haven't heard of that quote.
I don't mix in that sort of company.
Besides I'm to tall
to qualify as a rodent, my legs are too long. And I'm
naturally awesome. Also
I have all of my own teeth, so the gold tooth thingy
doesn't suit. But you've proven my point.

Venting and insulting again.

I guess it's your problem. I tried but - I'll leave you
to it.

Now back to the topic.

Back to the topic:

It's fair to say the Republic is not a top
priority for Australians.

In 2019 the Australian Election Study showed 51% of
Australians wanted to retain the Queen as their
head of state.

This presents Republican activists with a much
harder task then at any point in the past decades.
The need to make a huge dent in public opinion
to achieve the double majority support required
nationally and in at least 4 states for the
dissolution of the Australian monarchy.

We're told that support for a Republic is strongest
among baby boomers with about 65% wanting a revised
constitution.

ttbn,

I don't believe you have studied history. It just show in the way you write.

I suggest you enrol in a BA at a university if you want to study history.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Many thanks for those links you sent me; I'm well aware of the heroic deeds of the Russian women who suffered greatly at the hands of the Nazi's but showed extreme bravery when called upon.

Apropos ANZAC Day, I don't go anywhere or see anybody now since I lost my best mate, who served with great distinction at FSB Balmoral & Coral in South Vietnam. We'd argued continually who was the 'most technically advanced out of the two of us, he being an Infanteer, with his M60 GPMG, always on the ground and at much greater hazard. In contrast, I was on a UH-1B, a couple of hundred feet (mostly) above the jungle canopy!

Of course, he was in mortal danger whenever a contact was made. While we'd (me) would simply fly out of the trouble! We'd argued, good-naturedly for hours, among our small group of Vietnam veterans at the RSL Club. I guess any onlookers would've thought we were all mad; one even had a go at my mate's brother Marty, who served in 1RAR and saw his cousin decapitated by an NVA heavy machine gun, one of the first Aussie's killed in South Vietnam. We could joke around with Marty all day, but NEVER someone who was not a Vet?

I lost my best mate (David) to a brain tumour, not before accomplishing so much for former Viet. Vets, many of whom were fighting to have their war caused claims accepted by DVA. Just before David died, the Governor of Qld. benevolently held a special investiture for him (OAM), knowing he'd not survive till the normal Queens Birthday awards.

STEELE I will admit the war has sort of crept up on me now in my later years. Even though I'm nearly eighty, some of the events are as clear as if they happened yesterday. My wife says she hears me shouting out at night (we now sleep in separate rooms), due to nightmares - Most ALWAYS involves fighting some invisible foe. I'm buggered if I know? Take care 'ol mate.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I'm so sorry about the loss of your friend.
And also to learn that you have nightmares.
Can your GP give you any medication for
the nightmares?

You take care and know that we're all thinking of you.

All The Best,

I've just come across an online Ipsos poll
conducted by The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald
and Nine News early this year which found 40% of
Australians were opposed to a republic under which
Australia's own head of state would replace the
British monarchy.

Then there was on quarter who said they "didn't know"
which apparently was the highest level of undecided
responses on the issue recorded by successive Ipsos
and Nielsen polls. The polls also show that support
for a republic has steadily ebbed.

The latest Ipsos poll showed support for Australia being
a republic was lowest among the 18 to 24 age groups with
only 26% in favour compared to 34% in all other age
groups.

It's interesting that the Greens and Labor voters are
more likely we're told to support a republic 46% and
41% respectively compared to 27% of Coalition voters.

Mr. O

I doubt that there is a single living human being who cares what you "believe". In fact, if there has one of those 'I am not a robot' things on OLO, we would never have heard of you.

ttbn,

It's not what I believe, it's what I know, and I know you have never studied history.

You just make things up as you go along, thinking that you are a knowledgeable person.

Don't worry, you're not alone. mhaze, Hasbeen, shifty&shadyminister are all in the same boat as you.

O,

You really are a very stupid person.

Hi there FOXY...

Thank you for your kind words, but I'm okay, really. I lost Dave about 15 years ago now, and it's funny, neither the NVA nor the Viet Cong managed to knock him, but a brain tumour finally did! One of Australia's unsung heroes in my book! Thanks again, FOXY.

ttbn,

No, you're wrong. I'm really smart, especially after studying history at university. Something you'll never know anything about.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« "The nostalgia of British colonisation".

« What a load of BS! I've pretty much given up commenting on what other posters have to say; I don't read most of the leftist garbage at all. But, now and again, something really stupid comes up »
.

The acute personal sensitivity you express in reaction to the evocation of “British colonial nostalgia” is something you alone can explain, ttbn. Let me simply expand a little on the subject of colonial nostalgia in general.

Susan Bayly indicates in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology that "some 80% to 90% of the global landmass and a majority of the world’s population came under direct or indirect colonial rule by the processes initially set in train during the so-called early modern Age of Discovery (15th to 18th century), though greatly accelerated in their range and impact by the early twentieth century".

Not only has colonisation had a massive impact on the world population, post-colonisation has too. There are winners, losers … and the nostalgic !

In the late 1970s, a few anthropologists began to notice and reflect on what Richard Werbner, an American anthropologist, later called “a boom in colonial nostalgia”. Since then, a lot has been written not only about colonial nostalgia but also about imperial nostalgia.

Fred Davis, the American sociologist argued in his book “Yearning for Yesterday” that nostalgic reactions originate in perceived threats to the continuity of identity in the context of present fears, discontents, and uncertainties when identities have been “badly bruised by the turmoil of the times”. Against the idea of retrospective yearnings as politically regressive and emotionally disturbed, Davis sees nostalgia as an act anchored in the present context that says a lot more about contemporary social configurations than about the past, as it plays a crucial role in “constructing, maintaining, and reconstructing our identities” :

http://is.muni.cz/el/fss/jaro2013/SOC564/um/41480210/Yearning_for_Yesterday_Nostalgia.pdf

Here is a book on “Engaging Colonial Nostalgia” :

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3651534?refreqid=excelsior%3A9e9056269a90fdae79232a6dcb9accfe&seq=1

And here is an article (which you may have already seen) entitled “The British Empire is something to be proud of” :

http://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/07/26/britain-proud-its-empire

.

Banjo Paterson,

You're wasting your time discussing sociology and history with the likes of ttbn.

He has never studied these subjects.

He has never studied these subjects.
Mr Opinion,
Living these subjects is a much, much higher qualification than merely reading about them !

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for the information you've provided on
the nostalgia of colonisation. I know quite a few
friends and relatives who would like to see the
"golden days" of yester year returned. My parents
were such people who were convinced that they
would be able to one day return to their homeland.
They did not realise thaat things don't
stay the same or as they remember.

Still the yearning is there - especially as they grew
older.

Mr O,

Ttbn is a very conservative man - but you should
not make assumptions about his education. After all
none of us really know each other and sometimes when
we post things - they can often get misunderstood.

individual,

Anybody can say something like that.

"Oh, I didn't have to get a degree because I went to the University of Life."

Give us a break!

The world is full of wannabes.

Foxy,

After completing four degrees (especially three in Arts) and spending the best part of my life studying people I reckon I'm in a very good position to work out if someone has been studying subjects like history and sociology.

And I reckon I'm spot on when I say ttbn is not one of them.

I would rank ttbn, Hasbeen, shifty&shadyminister, along with a whole lot of others on The Forum, with the likes of Pauline Hanson. No wonder this country is in the mess it's in.

Oh, and when it comes to the latest news on the China-Australia rift: I TOLD YOU SO.

The world is full of wannabes.
Mr Opinion,
Yes, there's a definite saturation of them among the "educated" !
"Experts" who make policies based on other "Experts' recommendations that fail to work & then spend all their effort on blaming those who're trying to clean up the mess amid a barrage of criticism from the "Experts" who are invariably Academic !
Just look around & you'll see that anything that doesn't work stems from poor & over-education.
The real Academics do their work proficiently away from the lime light !

Let's just say that only a referendum would solved this question, and leave it at that.

Mr O,

Tertiary qualifications are only a framework. It's what
you do with them - and how they're used that counts.
And the more we learn in life - the more we realise
how little we know. I'm still learning today - and from
the most unexpected people. I'm proud of what I've
achieved - because it was not easy - studying, working
full time and raising a family. Without the support of
my husband I could not have done it.

I am pleased for you. You have achieved something of which
you are proud. As I imagine your family is as well.
However, keep on growing and learning. But above all - be
happy. I wish you well!

Foxy,

And you know that the Arts subjects especially history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology are manipulated for political purpose.

Don't we see it everytime we open The Forum with the likes of ttbn, Hasbeen, shifty&shadyminister, etc.

Their only interest in these subjects is all about how they can twist knowledge to achieve their own political ends.

I, and assume you also, study Arts for Arts sake. It is a vehicle for learning about the world especially the world of our human species. We stand on the shoulders of Socrates, seeking knowledge for love of knowledge: we have a philosophical pursuit.

The others only care about how these subjects can be (ab)used for their own purposes.

That's why I place emphasis on having actually studies the Arts subjects and gained the credentials that set one apart from the likes of ttbn, Hasbeen, shifty&shadyminister, etc.

It's hard to believe, even these days, that any university would turn out something like Mr. Opinionated; and there is no evidence that he has more than a minimal education.

However, as Jennifer Oriel says of universities, it's the "miseducated" leading the uneducated into a realm of darkness. Universities have been transformed from sites of higher learning into revolutionary colleges since the late 1960s.

"The university is a hollow man stripped of purpose and devoid of substance".

ttbn,

In your case it looks like sour grapes, not being able to have that which is out of your reach.

Mr Opinionated - Please give us the titles of your text books and lecturers names so we can know from which perspective they view history. History has perspective so not all are interpreted the same by every historian. Until you give us these - Shut up about your knowledge of History. I left school at 15 to work on my fathers dairy, but I know enough that writers interpret history to suit their world view.

Dear o sung wu,

Cheers mate. Started limiting my drinking to special occasions and ANZAC Day is one of them. I trust you won't mind if I raise a glass to yourself, David and Marty.

All the best.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I'd feel so honoured if you did so, especially for Marty (ex.1RAR) and David (dec. ex 3RAR). Though compared to those two aforementioned gentlemen, I was greatly underserved (5 Sqn Malay/Thai Border, and later, 9 Sqn South Vietnam). Thank you so much STEELEREDUX, I really appreciate it.

It's what you do with them - and how they're used that counts.
Foxy,
That's what I'm constantly on about. Most educated should not be allowed to call themselves Academic.

Individual,

You don't have to be an academic to be educated.
And as an academic you may only be educated in
the one field or area of expertise.
It's complicated. That's life!

Every now and then I feel the need to remind people of the true nature of Mr O's claims to being credentialed. Note I said credentialed - we all can plainly see he's not educated but that doesn't disprove having credentials.

This is my post from last year...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9219#309052

A quote from that post..."A small anecdote...A little while back one thread devolved into a discussion about the Athenian constitution. Mr O asserted with full confidence that the Athenian leadership was chosen by lot. Its the sort of error someone would make if they based their knowledge on some Reader's Digest style history or perhaps a misunderstanding of the history channel.

Anyway it was utterly wrong and completely bonkers. While some inconsequential positions were chosen by lot nothing approaching leadership was.

So I pointed out the error and offered a few facts that demonstrated the error.

Mr O's response wasn't to defend his claims with data. It wasn't to admit error.

Instead he suddenly proclaimed that he had academic credentials in ancient Greece and therefore anything he said about Athens was correct. He'd created these supposed credentials out of thin air as a means to defend the indefensible.

I assume all his other claims are equally invalid."

mhaze,

One thing I do know for certain: I am definitely not on your level.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« Let's just say that only a referendum would solved this question, and leave it at that. »
.

Sure, let’s give that a try, ttbn, but the problem is that by answering the question, you don’t necessarily solve the problem !

It depends on how you word the question. We already saw that back in 1999 …

But I guess we’re a little older and a little wiser now. Once bitten, twice shy !

.

If there's to be a republic there has to be a referendum. There's just no other way. The constitution has to be changed and a referendum following the rules as set out in the constitution is the only way to make the change.

Whatismore the change has to be in a Yes/No format ie the question would be something like "Do you want to change the wording of the constitution from this to this? Yes/No."

Therefore you need to have a question most people would say Yes to. But the public remains divided into roughly thirds - one third want no change, one third want an elected president, one third want an appointed president. So getting a 50% Yes is near impossible. Remember also that not only must the vote get more than 50% overall but it must also get more than 50% of the states agreeing.

So good luck with that.

Before having a Referendum - it needs to be
established whether a majority want a Republic.
and also what method to elect the President
(by the people or the Parliament). The reason a
Referendum failed the last time was that there
was not agreement on the method proposed for
the selection of the President.

I would suggest that we first have a plebiscite,
asking these two questions -1) Do we want a Republic.
2) Method of selection of the President.
And this could be followed by a Referendum.

Until those two questions are established having a
Referendum would be a waste of time and resources.

The last time around we had a Constitutional Convention made up of people elected by the general public and others appointed by governments state and federal. They considered both methods of electing the president and agreed overwhelmingly to put the Appointed President option to the referendum.

The problem was that enough of those who wanted an elected president were prepared to vote against a republic rather than for their less-preferred option that the 'Yes' case failed, rather dramatically. I was one who voted against a republic with an appointed president but would have voted for a republic with an elected president.

Just inserting another popular vote in the middle doesn't solve the issue. In the end, but whatever means, the people have to be asked one question.

The monarchists will always vote against the republic.
If the option is for an elected president, then a large number of those who want an appointed president will vote 'no'.
If the option is for an appointed president, then a large number of those who want an elected president will vote 'no'.

End result - the 'noes' have it.

The only way this changes is if there's a compelling and urgent need to change, rather than just a whim of the elite. Until then, its all whistling in the wind.

Foxy,

There are bigger issues to resolve than whether or not Australia should become a republic.

In fact, Australia is not even a nation-state. So who cares about being a republic when we can't even establish ourselves as a nation-state.

We were on the the road to being a nation-state with a strong nation building program until - you guessed it! - Australian Multiculturalism (aka the Great Asianization Period 1980-2020) came along and hit the idea of having a nation-state for six.

I see Scotty From Marketing was the 21st speaker at Biden's climate forum yesterday. Shows you what the big players think of Australia - which by the way is not even a nation-state.

This certainly is a complex issue on many fronts.

Points being raised are valid. I am grateful this
discussion has attracted so many.

Australia is certainly a State
because it has its own government and it has
sovereignty over its territories. There is a
common Australian identity but we're also a country
with considerable immigration from distinctive cultural
backgrounds. I am unsure whether our Australian identity
is strong enough to mask all of these backgrounds.

There is an
influential collective British identity which will undoubtedly
influence people's decisions whether or not they want to become
a Republic.

Mr O,

I've just found that according to the National
Museum of Australia:

"Australia became a nation on 1 January 1901,
when the British Parliament passed legislation
enabling the six Australian colonies to collectively
govern in their own right as the 'Commonwealth of
Australia.'

We're told it was " a remarkable political
accomplishment that had taken many years and several
referenda to achieve."

Foxy,

I said Australia is not a nation-state.

We have a territory and a State but do not have a shared history, shared language or shared culture necessary to define us as a nation-state.

We are a multi-ethnic nation. But definitely not a nation-state.

PS Did you see where Biden snubbed Scotty From Marketing at yesterday's climate forum? Biden had left the room by the time Soot gave his speech. Tells you how little the major players regard Australia's proposed contribution to the global warming issue.

Actually, we have more chance with buddying up with China especially given that Xi said at the forum that China was business as usual and he expected the advanced nations to do all the hard work. Actually, I think that's exactly what Soot is saying!

Mr O,

Please define what you think a nation is.
And what is a nation-state in your opinion?

Foxy,

I passed Sociology 101 a long time ago and don't sit for exams any more.

Google it if you want definitions or ask someone like mhaze or shifty&shadyminister who would be eager to let you in on how little they know.

Mr O,

I take it from your post - you aren't prepared
to back up your statements. That is unfortunate.
There's nothing more to say.

Foxy,

I just give opinions.

I don't care about justifying what I say because I'm always right and everyone else is wrong.

That's why I always get to say "I TOLD YOU SO."

Dear o sung wu,

The honour is all mine mate, consider it done.

I have had a look at the Wikipedia page of the No. 9 Squadron and was reading the following:

"During the Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966 two No. 9 Squadron Iroquois flown by Flight Lieutenants Cliff Dohle and Frank Riley completed a hazardous mission to resupply D Company, 6 RAR which was heavily outnumbered and running dangerously low on ammunition. The mission proved vital in ensuring the survival of the Australian infantry until a relief force could fight its way through from Nui Dat and was completed despite heavy rain and the risk of ground fire."

I was wondering if you flew with either of them?

My father was a deep sea diver working off the Southern Philippines in the mid 70s and there were a couple of ex Vietnam vet chopper pilots who flew to the rigs back then. Couldn't get SE Asian out of their veins it seems.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I flew with Bruce (Sparrow) LANE mainly, and 'Laddie' HINDLEY (dec), and Kevin SHARPLEY. My sergeant was Gordon BUTTRISS, who won the GM for saving the life of a downed crew in enemy-occupied jungle. I don't know if there's anything on Gordon with his bravery award; you might find it somewhere.

Sadly, years later, when I was in the coppers, I met Gordon. He wasn't doing too good; I've got to say. I won't go into here, but for such a courageous man...well??

Or should things be left as they are?
Foxy,
Not if there's room & potential for improvement but there isn't at this stage ! So, leave it for time being !

Individual,

I'm sure that many will agree with you.

Foxy,

Given Scotty From Marketing's performance at Biden's climate summit maybe we can become Australia: Republic in Isolation.

Soot can be the first President of the No-Greeners and oversee catastrophic bushfires and floods as he fills the pockets of an industrial elite with taxpayers' money to build imaginary machines in Hydrogen Valley (wherever that is) but in fact spends it on executive bonuses.

I notice Soot refuses to set targets for tackling global warming. A skill he picked up organising this year's vaccine rollout.

Mr O,

How about offering some solutions to what you
see as the problems of the government. What
do you think they should do?

Soot refuses to set targets for tackling global warming...
Mr Opinion,
Those who have set targets, any info how they're tackling the problem solving since they set those targets ?

individual,

I'm sure your childlike mind can come up with the answer all by itself.

Sorry STEELEREDUX, I didn't answer or respond to your questions in its entirety. There were two RILEY's in 9 Sqn, and yes, I knew Frank Riley and Cliffy DOHLE but didn't fly with either of 'em; we were on different tours. Nonetheless, their courage is legendary.

With all their many advantages, Choppers are dangerously vulnerable when in the hover or winching mode. And when heavy monsoonal rains are added to the equation, it makes the whole operation relatively more interesting, requiring the Pilot I/C to have a steady nerve, with reduced visibility, while the A/C is pitching and yawing while trying to maintain the hover.

Your feet are on the rudder peddles, your Cyclic Control is in your right hand, and the Collective Pitch Control is in your left! Coupled with monsoonal rain, and a heavily armed enemy nearby - wonderful!

Because 5 and 9 Sqn's were all rotor-wing specific, thus interchangeable, you got to hear of most of the other blokes in the Sqns, even though you may not have met or spoken with them. 5 Sqn was only deployed on the Malay/Thai Border from (I think) June or July of 1964 till mid-1965. I was attached there from Aug 1964 until June of 1965. And the Indonesian Confrontation was in full swing by then as well.

Surprisingly, many years later, I received a small Registered packet in the mail from the Honours & Awards Section of the Dept. of Defence. It contained the 'Pingat Jasa Malaysia' Medal from the Malaysian Government!

Wow, by the sound of your Dad's profession, he must be one very courageous individual to undertake deep-sea diving! You'd never get me anywhere near a deep-sea diving apparatus, given the dangers would be innumerable. May I ask, is he still living? You must be immensely proud of him. Did he ever serve in the Navy?

Wow, right off-topic again; I am sorry to the moderators and originator of this subject.

Mr Opinion,
You really shouldn't comment if you're lost for answers !

individual,

It's not my role to tell you people what should be done.

I just observe and comment and offer some glimpse into what the future will bring.

It's up to you people as to whether or not you take what I say on board.

That's the reason I am open about my qualifications so that you can judge if what I have to say might have merit.

Thanks to everyone who contributed something
of value to this discussion. For me it's now
run its course.

I look forward to our next one.

Have a nice day and don't forget to light a
candle as the RSL has asked us to do TODAY
ANZAC DAY - and have a minutes silence to
honour our fallen.

Take care.

you can judge if what I have to say might have merit.
Mr Opinion,
Where's the merit ?

The Americans led us into wars, the Americans lead us out of wars. After 20 year of useless war in Afghanistan the Americans are getting out, and their obedient puppy Australia is following suit. What did 30,000 Aussies achieve? 41 dead Aussies, not many by our standards, many more left with scars both mental and physical, a few war criminals, so many dead Americans and others, who knows how many dead Afghans, millions maybe, they don't count in our estimations.

We need no more Koreas, Vietnams, Iraq's, Syria's or Afghanistan's Unfortunately we do need a defence force, not an aggressive military outfit at the ready to attack poor third world nations as we have now, and have done in the past. Australia should be a free non aligned nation with a voice for true peace in the world.

Australia should be a free non aligned nation with a voice for true peace in the world.
Paul1405,
People such as yourself would never agree to that !

Dear Paul1405,

If Australia wants peace it could ask itself how many of the wars that it has been in could have been avoided. Was the Boer War the fault of the Americans? The fact is that Australia has tied its destiny to other powers. It glorifies its actions in past wars in a way that sets the stage for emulating those acts in future wars. Anzac day could mention those in Australia like Backhouse who have warned against war. We could have a peace day which could examine our history and emphasize what Australia could do to prevent future wars. We could even mention on Anzac Day those have opposed the wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_pacifists names some of those who have opposed Australia's wars. It doesn't mention Backhouse. For starters Australia could be honest and not call its military forces defense forces. It has an army, navy and air force. Afghanistan and other places where Australia have fought were not defensive actions. It is easy to blame the Americans and English for leading Australia into war. The fact is that Australia has chosen to be led.

Regarding our involvement in wars?

We need to look at things in context.

The web tells us that -

"When Great Britain declared war on Germany in 1914
Australia found itself automatically at war too.
It is important to remember that Australian troops were
sent to be part of an imperial army."

"Most Australians believed that they were a part of
the British Empire and wanted to do all they could to
protect it. The 1st World War helped to foster a sense
of Australian nationalism."

"The Australian government committed troops to the
Vietnam War in 1965. This was driven by a fear of
communist expansion in Asia as well as the government's
desire to align itself with its ally - the United States."

"Australia first committed military personnel
in Afghanistan in October 2001 after the 11th September
attacks on the World Trade Center. PM John Howard invoked
Article VI of the ANZUS Treaty in support of Australia's
involvement. The only time the Treaty has been invoked."

"We went to Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda - to prevent
future terrorist attacks. Our objective was clear - the
cause was just - and our NATO allies and partners rallied
beside us."

" At all times, vigilance is the price of liberty.
We must remain vigilant because while it might be us today,
it will be some other group down the road 20 years from now.
The measure of our society over history is our fidelity to
our principles. We must remind our government and our
people to remain faithful to those principles or otherwise
our society, like so many in the past, will be swept on
the ash heap of history."

Foxy,

Please don't tell me you have been reduced to cut & paste analysis.

You are my kindred spirit so I expect to see more than that from you.

From the above it looks like you have been reduced to regurgitating extracts from the web to present as your own analysis.

That's alright for The Forum's usual suspects but not for you.

The Vietnam War was about containing Russian expansionism more than it was about a fear of communism. I think we are seeing this being played out again as we start to contain Chinese expansionism while accepting the presence of Chinese Communism within the global economy as long as China can be held at bay.

I have never been fully on board about the importance of ANZAC and Gallipoli in shaping Australian nationalism. I think the Pacific War was a more important aspect especially when the post-WW2 period was marked by a worldwide call for self-determination, the creation of nation-states as the universal political form, and the UN endeavour to mend a war-torn world through large-scale nation-building projects.

Mr O,

Talking about the subject of wars is very emotional
for me as so many of my family members paid such
a high price as I'm sure so did many other people.
I chose to cite from the web because they are
historical facts and as I suggested - things need to
be taken in their proper context.

In any case - I shall leave it there. I'm sorry that
I've somehow let you down.

Foxy wrote ""The Australian government committed troops to the
Vietnam War in 1965. This was driven by a fear of
communist expansion in Asia as well as the government's
desire to align itself with its ally - the United States."

Let’s look at things in context. Vietnam had been a colony of France and the Vietnamese in general wanted to be independent. The drive for Vietnamese independence was part of the post-WW2 drive of the European colonies to free themselves from foreign domination. I had a cousin who was an air force pilot in Vietnam during that war. He realized at some point that the US was just taking the place of the French, and most of the people didn’t want us there. While he was there a washerwoman came on base with grenades under her skirt. They were detected before she could do any damage. He could not resign as he was in there for the duration. However, he could refuse promotion. If you are in grade as an officer and refuse promotion for a certain length of time you are discharged. Although he had planned to make the air force a career he refused promotion and eventually got out.

Communist expansion? Nonsense! The Vietnamese wanted independence and fear of communist expansion was the false justification for denying them independence.

Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (gmu.edu)

The following is excerpted from that:

Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

For the people of Vietnam, who were just beginning to recover from five years of ruthless economic exploitation by the Japanese, the end of World War II promised to bring eighty years of French control to a close. As the League for the Independence of Vietnam (Vietnam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi), better known as the Viet Minh, Vietnamese nationalists had fought against the Japanese invaders as well as the defeated French colonial authorities. With the support of rich and poor peasants, workers, businessmen, landlords, students, and intellectuals, the Viet Minh (led by Ho Chi Minh) had expanded throughout northern Vietnam where it established new local governments, redistributed some lands, and opened granaries to alleviate the famine. On September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi’s Ba Dinh square. The first lines of his speech repeated verbatim the famous second paragraph of America’s 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Ho Chi Minh was a communist, but he was influenced by the US struggle for independence from England as shown by his extract from the US Declaration of Independence. Had the US chosen to do so they might have made Ho an ally rather than an enemy. Vietnam was no friend of China and fought them in 1979.

With all due respect - the Prime Minister
John Howard has stated that he still
supports Australia's controversial involvement
in the Vietnam War.

It was what he believed at that time.

According to
him, nothing has altered his views on the
assessments he was given, and the decisions he made
then.

If you want to discuss the topic of wars -
perhaps a new discussion can be made on
that subject?

Also, the Australian War Memorial has more
information on the reasons for Australia's
involvement in the Vietnam War 1962-75.
All you have to do is Google it.

Foxy,

Rather than discussing War, I would like to see someone open up a discussion on the current status of the actions to tackle global warming given the great leap forward that has been made by Joe Biden over the past week.

This is a real game changer and a real slap in the face to the AGW denialists who have just had their world turned upset down.

Foxy,

PS After all, don't we all want to relive moments like this - make sure you turn on the volume:

http://www.facebook.com/theguardianaustralia/videos/scott-morrison-brings-a-chunk-of-coal-into-parliament-video/1272461879455562/

Dear o sung wu,

My father was a naval officer and more specifically a clearance diver. He has passed away now but did see a bit of action during the Malayan Emergency and the Korean War. It was great to be able to acknowledge his efforts on this occasion along with yours and those of your comrades.

As a deep sea diver he nearly lost his life a number of times but we only learnt of them as kids when his diving buddies would talk about them.

Tough bloke but not immune in the end to a drinking culture that was so much of service and oilrig life back then.

It has been good however to pause and take some extended time to remember him this ANZAC Day.

On your Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal I have been talking to my uncle who was the First Secretary of the Malaysian Embassy. One of the people he still has contact with is the former head of Special Branch. This chap apparently led a contingent of Sarawak Rangers which you are likely familiar with.

The story he relates is that on this chap's birthday his men presented him with 24 severed heads of Indonesian soldiers they had gathered from across the border during the night.

It sounds like it got very willing over there.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

We mainly dealt with the MFP, who were also quite 'willing' who recommended we dispatch our suspect(s) about 600feet before landing. Odd rules for equally odd times?

As I said in my last post, you must be enormously proud of your Dad! From what I understand from former Naval mates, Divers were considered the very 'top of the tree' for the hazardous work they do, even in times of peace. You wouldn't get me anywhere near such a duty if I were asked to learn their skills!

Your father must've been one tough man diving and working on oil rigs, with courage to burn as well. The fact he nearly lost his life on several occasions doesn't surprise me one bit, given the treachery and the unknown whenever they dive in deep water.

As I said before, no way for me. You'd need a special brand of bravery for anyone to undertake that sort of activity.

I'm delighted to hear you recognised & paused a moment as you remembered & acknowledged your Dad's brave actions yesterday, ANZAC Day. A special day to recognise your father and others like him, who took inordinately high risks in the course of their military duties. And by the sound of it, typically he and his kind rarely, if ever, spoke about it?