Good wars vs bad wars

[medusala]

Iraq is obviously very unpopular yet Australian action in East Timor was overwhelmingly supported, this led me to think about exactly was does make a good war or conflict. There are many sorts so I thought I would break it down into categories.

Wars to despose a govt brutalising a population
Iraq - bad
East Timor - acceptable

Wars to spread your own religion
Crusades - bad
Mohammedan armies - acceptable
Timurlane - acceptable
Moghuls - acceptable

Wars to recapture territory that has been invaded
Falklands - bad
Russia/Dagestan - bad
Palestine - acceptable

Revolutions/coups that end in widespread human rights violations
cuba - acceptable
china - acceptable
russia - acceptable
iran - acceptable
argentina - bad
chile - bad
spain - bad

Wars of independence
afghanistan - acceptable
vietnam - acceptable
irian jaya - bad
kurds - bad
kharen - bad

Wars to invade your neighbour
Yom Kippur -acceptable
Iran/iraq - ok
6 days war - bad

Colonial expansion by war
China - acceptable
Russia - acceptable
England/france - bad

Wars to stop the spread of communisn
Korea - acceptable
Malaya - acceptable
Vietnam - bad

Civil conflict / ethnic and religious cleansing
Arab expulsion of jews - acceptable
Hungenots in France - acceptable
Southern Sudan - acceptable
Rwanda - acceptable
Spanish inquisition- bad
Hitler - bad
Bosnia - bad

Conquest and mistreatment of aboriginal people
Vietnam - acceptable
Japan - acceptable
Australia - shocking

Invasions related to national security
Suez - bad
Iron Curtain - ok
Indonesia in East Timor - ok

There are probably a few categories I have missed (or maybe wars have arguable been put in the wrong categories) but just with the ones above it seems to me very confusing. I clearly need a history lesson from Manning Clarke or Dan Warna.

edit: assessment not mine but that of the left. Thats why I am confused.

 

[jim boy]

Have to disagree with your assessment about most of the wars, far too many are acceptable in my eyes.

For me the only wars deemed acceptable are those which are solely aimed at getting rid of oppresive regimes. This includes certain wars of independence and could be argued to be extended to include stopping communism, although with hindsight, it really wasn't worth it. Acceptable certainly doesn't include Iraq either, getting rid of an oppresive regime was merely an incidental benefit, not the purpose of the war.

 

[demon_dave]

as Jim Boy says no war is acceptable, you obviously don't know enough of these wars to make judgement, YOU say whats acceptable and whats not? you gotta stop pullin' the pud

 

[Hawkforce]

For me the only wars deemed acceptable are those which are solely aimed at getting rid of oppresive regimes.

SO UN approval is not a concern?

Cos, you know the UN has no remit to approve wars based simply on removing oppressive regimes?

 

[PA HOG]

SO UN approval is not a concern?

Cos, you know the UN has no remit to approve wars based simply on removing oppressive regimes?

Cos, who's the judge of oppressive regimes.

 

[medusala]

Have to disagree with your assessment about most of the wars, far too many are acceptable in my eyes.
.

If you had read some of my earlier posts on other threads you may realise that the assessment of acceptability is not mine but that of the left. Some may care to say that the left didnt/doesnt approve/accept these wars but their silence was deafening then and now.

Just to take one example. The pope the other day apologised for the crusades. The left has long abused the notion of the crusades and hero worshipped the all wise Saladin. The crusades were about recapturing formerly christian lands part of which was Palestine. Other than the religious aspect, not too dissimilar to the Palestinian struggle but they according the ABC amongst others are oppressed freedom fighters valiantly battling against a stronger foe.

Consistency is a virtue, hypocrisy isn't.

 

[jim boy]

SO UN approval is not a concern?

Cos, you know the UN has no remit to approve wars based simply on removing oppressive regimes?

Did I ever say the UN was of a concern? Sure it has it's purposes, if military action is approved by the UN, it's far more likely to be accepted and that's important. But if a war is morally wrong, just because the UN approves it doesn't make it morally right. And the reverse is true as well.

 

[medusala]

Did I ever say the UN was of a concern? Sure it has it's purposes, if military action is approved by the UN, it's far more likely to be accepted and that's important. But if a war is morally wrong, just because the UN approves it doesn't make it morally right. And the reverse is true as well.

The definition of what is morally right and wrong is impossible to define. I am not a Blair fan at all but I genuinely believe him when he says that he morally believes that going to war was the right decision. His morality would definitely be different to mine but that's life.

One of the ones I find interesting is Pinochet in Chile. He is widely reviled today for the torture and removal of political opposition and disappearance of so many. He also had killed the elected president Allende. However, its not quite so clear cut as that. Allende was a communist who hardly had clean hands. It is quite easy to make the argument that if he remained in power a horrible civil war would have eventuated with far more deaths and destruction than under Pinochet. Pinochet was hardly an angel, far from it but it is possible to make a case that he certainly was the lesser of two evils and he did guide the country back to democracy and ran the economy well. Similar parallel with Franco in Spain, though there was a civil war there.

 

[demon_dave]

If you had read some of my earlier posts on other threads you may realise that the assessment of acceptability is not mine but that of the left. Some may care to say that the left didnt/doesnt approve/accept these wars but their silence was deafening then and now.

Just to take one example. The pope the other day apologised for the crusades. The left has long abused the notion of the crusades and hero worshipped the all wise Saladin. The crusades were about recapturing formerly christian lands part of which was Palestine. Other than the religious aspect, not too dissimilar to the Palestinian struggle but they according the ABC amongst others are oppressed freedom fighters valiantly battling against a stronger foe.

Consistency is a virtue, hypocrisy isn't.

you can pontificate as much as you like about who thinks what and whats who got to do with it, the bottom line is you continually blame the left for not letting your beloved neo-cons crush any regime they want. I suggest you stick to watching poxnews which will give you what you want. addit: if you opened your blinkered eyes you will see that the palestinians ARE only trying to get back land that is rightfully theirs.

 

[CharlieG]

Iraq is obviously very unpopular yet Australian action in East Timor was overwhelmingly supported, this led me to think about exactly was does make a good war or conflict. There are many sorts so I thought I would break it down into categories.

This could be interesting.

Wars to despose a govt brutalising a population
Iraq - bad
East Timor - acceptable

These two can't be compared. Massive difference between invading, occupying and dispossessing a country on the assumption that the people want you too, and entering an new nation as peacekeepers - with Indonesian cooperation - that had passed a referendum on independence.

Wars to spread your own religion
Crusades - bad
Mohammedan armies - acceptable
Timurlane - acceptable
Moghuls - acceptable

Have you got something, say, within the past 700 years? There's no point going on about the rights and wrongs of the feudal period... there were a completely different set of values dominating the world. This 'category' is irrelevent.

Wars to recapture territory that has been invaded
Falklands - bad
Russia/Dagestan - bad
Palestine - acceptable

These wars are fought for varying reasons. The occupiers - Argentina, Russia and Israel - have land as their underlying motivation. The others have people as their motivation - the motive isn't territory, it's independence.

Revolutions/coups that end in widespread human rights violations
cuba - acceptable
china - acceptable
russia - acceptable
iran - acceptable
argentina - bad
chile - bad
spain - bad

Cuba was hardly heaven before Castro. Same with China - the Chinese Communists actually made inroads to human rights in the early period of their rule, but I don't expect you to believe that because it might require you to question your preconceptions. Which Russian revolution/coup are you talking about? Both were a progression on the previous social system, though. I presume in Argentina, Chile and Spain you're talking about the fascist/military governments. Sorry, but I value the idea of the people ruling, not the high and mighty. I don't think you'll find too many leftists who would support the Iranian government... but the important point is national choice. If democracy is forced, it is not democracy. Neither is Iran's system, but if democracy is ever going to work there it needs to be implemented by Iran's own people.

Wars of independence
afghanistan - acceptable
vietnam - acceptable
irian jaya - bad
kurds - bad
kharen - bad

Ok, a war of independence implies a nationality or ethnic group doing the fighting. I wouldn't classify Afghanistan as a war of independence. Vietnam was - and I'm curious to know what's wrong about people fighting for their national identity... certainly a lot of Australians revere war as the ultimate expression of patriotism. Why should the Vietnamese be any different?

I don't have any opposition to Irian Jaya and the Kurds breaking away from their current states. It's the governments people like you support that do... so what's your point? You'll need to bring me up to speed on Kharen.

Wars to invade your neighbour
Yom Kippur -acceptable
Iran/iraq - ok
6 days war - bad

I don't agree with any of those assessments. The Six Day War was a pretty clear case of a preventive war. Yom Kippur wasn't a just fight, and Iran/Iraq was a bloodbath that shouldn't have happened... but you might want to talk to Rumsfeld about that? I'm sure that photo of him shaking Saddam's hand is a little embarassing.

Colonial expansion by war
China - acceptable
Russia - acceptable
England/france - bad

China? Colonial expansion? Not in the past century, that's for sure. Russia, also, hasn't expanded colonially since the Russian Revolution. England and France were the leaders in a post-Industrial world phenomenon. It's history, we now see it as wrong, but I'm not sure what you're bitter about. The colonial period is over.

Wars to stop the spread of communisn
Korea - acceptable
Malaya - acceptable
Vietnam - bad

The Korean War had UN backing - however shaky that backing looks considering the circumstances. I'd dispute your classing of the Malayan Emergency as 'acceptable' - the same fundamental problems that existed in Vietnam and now in Iraq, although not nearly on the same scale, existed.

Stopping the 'spread' of communism is fine if the people don't want communism. The point is, in Vietnam the people wanted communism - it was only a small, relatively rich urban middle and upper class that supported the various Saigon governments. The war was fought ostensibly to protect the Vietnamese people, but it was fought against the Vietnamese people. How could such a war be right?

Civil conflict / ethnic and religious cleansing
Arab expulsion of jews - acceptable
Hungenots in France - acceptable
Southern Sudan - acceptable
Rwanda - acceptable
Spanish inquisition- bad
Hitler - bad
Bosnia - bad

Put the Arab expulsion into it's wider context, and then it might be worth going into. The Huguenots and Spanish Inquisition are from a bygone era; they are history. I don't know anybody who supports what happened in Rwanda or is happening in Sudan. Bosnia is shocking because it was mass slaughter in a part of the world that was supposed to have moved past such things. Do you argue against the 'Hitler was bad' view?

Conquest and mistreatment of aboriginal people
Vietnam - acceptable
Japan - acceptable
Australia - shocking

Do you understand what protest is about? It's aim is to materially work to improve a situation. Now, in Australia, the only one of the three you mentioned that can be materially improved by Australians is the situation of the Australian aborigines. It should be a given, then, that their situation is given the main consideration. I don't think Australians are in much of a position to do much for the Montagnards.

BTW - Japan's ethnic cleansing belonged to a period where it was the done thing. You need to understand that it's pointless arguing about the rights and wrongs of feudal societies, with a modern eye. We have different values, which, as superior as I believe them to be, can't be inferred onto people from different eras.

Invasions related to national security
Suez - bad
Iron Curtain - ok
Indonesia in East Timor - ok

Ah... now we get to it. First you say the left accepted the Australian mission in East Timor... now it's the Indonesians where supposed to be supporting? Get back to me when you've sorted it out.

The Iron Curtain invasions you speak of are presumedly Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Just one question. When the Hungarians and Czechs were standing up for their national sovereignty and their human rights, where was the West? Where were the people who supposedly defend such ideals?

I don't know much about the Suez Crisis in 1956, but I think it had a lot more to do with economic than security concerns for the British and French.

There are probably a few categories I have missed (or maybe wars have arguable been put in the wrong categories) but just with the ones above it seems to me very confusing. I clearly need a history lesson from Manning Clarke or Dan Warna.

edit: assessment not mine but that of the left. Thats why I am confused.

Ok, if that is, as you claim, the 'assessment of the left', please show us your sources. Otherwise, say what it is: more ramblings from a paranoid, bitter right-wing nut.

At least do us the courtesy of sorting out your argument, working out what you're trying to say and limiting the field of reference to the modern period.

 

[medusala]

These two can't be compared. Massive difference between invading, occupying and dispossessing a country on the assumption that the people want you too, and entering an new nation as peacekeepers - with Indonesian cooperation - that had passed a referendum on independence.

Australia invaded East Timor prior to a UN vote and if you held a referendum in Iraq asking if the wanted to get rid of Saddam, you dont think they would have voted yes? Nor would the Kurds and Shia vote for independence?

Have you got something, say, within the past 700 years? There's no point going on about the rights and wrongs of the feudal period... there were a completely different set of values dominating the world. This 'category' is irrelevent.

The relevance is that the crusades kept being brought up by both the media and the muslim fundamentalists.

These wars are fought for varying reasons. The occupiers - Argentina, Russia and Israel - have land as their underlying motivation. The others have people as their motivation - the motive isn't territory, it's independence.

Well the people of the Falklands seemed pretty darn happy when the Brits recaptured the Islands. If its not about land, then why do the Palestinians complain about a fence being built on their territory?

Cuba was hardly heaven before Castro. Same with China - the Chinese Communists actually made inroads to human rights in the early period of their rule, but I don't expect you to believe that because it might require you to question your preconceptions. Which Russian revolution/coup are you talking about? Both were a progression on the previous social system, though. I presume in Argentina, Chile and Spain you're talking about the fascist/military governments. Sorry, but I value the idea of the people ruling, not the high and mighty. I don't think you'll find too many leftists who would support the Iranian government... but the important point is national choice. If democracy is forced, it is not democracy. Neither is Iran's system, but if democracy is ever going to work there it needs to be implemented by Iran's own people.

Both China and the USSR an improvement on the previous system? You must be kidding. Millions died in the great leap forward and Stalin killed up to 30m of his countrymen. How is that better than what happened under the czar? The USSR produced less wheat in the 80's than it did pre revolution, that is how bad communism was. There may have been alot of corruption in Cuba but nobody could seriously argue the place is better off under Castro.

Ok, a war of independence implies a nationality or ethnic group doing the fighting. I wouldn't classify Afghanistan as a war of independence. Vietnam was - and I'm curious to know what's wrong about people fighting for their national identity... certainly a lot of Australians revere war as the ultimate expression of patriotism. Why should the Vietnamese be any different?

I don't have any opposition to Irian Jaya and the Kurds breaking away from their current states. It's the governments people like you support that do... so what's your point? You'll need to bring me up to speed on Kharen.

Afghanistan fighting the USSR wasnt a war of independence? North Vietnam tried to take over the south in the same way North Korea tried to take over South Korea. One in the eyes of the left gets a muted acceptance the other is villified. If the South Vietnamese were so keen on "independence" then why did refugees flee in such large numbers? Fighting for independence from whom? When the US went there the South Vietnamese were already a sovereign state.

Govts that I support oppose the Kurds independence? Interesting extrapolation, not sure how you arrived there. Did Saddam oppose Kurd independence? Yep.

China? Colonial expansion? Not in the past century, that's for sure. Russia, also, hasn't expanded colonially since the Russian Revolution. England and France were the leaders in a post-Industrial world phenomenon. It's history, we now see it as wrong, but I'm not sure what you're bitter about. The colonial period is over.

You really are struggling here. When did China enter Tibet? When did the USSR enter the Baltic states and eastern Europe? I can give you a tip, it was in the last century. Thabo Mbekis brother came out last week and said that Africa was better off under colonial rule. Have you ever heard anyone from eastern europe or Tibet say that life was/is better under USSR/China rule?

The Korean War had UN backing - however shaky that backing looks considering the circumstances. I'd dispute your classing of the Malayan Emergency as 'acceptable' - the same fundamental problems that existed in Vietnam and now in Iraq, although not nearly on the same scale, existed.

Stopping the 'spread' of communism is fine if the people don't want communism. The point is, in Vietnam the people wanted communism - it was only a small, relatively rich urban middle and upper class that supported the various Saigon governments. The war was fought ostensibly to protect the Vietnamese people, but it was fought against the Vietnamese people. How could such a war be right?

The Malayan emergency was fighting against the communists who were basically all Chinese and a minority of the population. The vast majority of people did not want communism which is basically the reason the conflict ended in the way it did rather than in a bloody mess. The vietnam and Korean wars were basically the same. If the south wanted communism so much then why were there so many refugees leaving the workers paradise?


Put the Arab expulsion into it's wider context, and then it might be worth going into. The Huguenots and Spanish Inquisition are from a bygone era; they are history. I don't know anybody who supports what happened in Rwanda or is happening in Sudan. Bosnia is shocking because it was mass slaughter in a part of the world that was supposed to have moved past such things. Do you argue against the 'Hitler was bad' view?

The Hugenots were still being thoroughly persecuted around the time the first fleet arrived here. If you are willing to argue that aboriginal dispossession is from a bygone era and that wik and mabo should never have occurred then fair enough, I will agree with you. Re Rwanda and Sudan, WTF did Kofi Annan and co do about them? Guilt by silence. Re Bosnia, so that part of the world counts and others dont? Christians killing muslims there is bad, muslims killing christians in Sudan is ok? I think Hitler being bad is a bit of a given.

Do you understand what protest is about? It's aim is to materially work to improve a situation. Now, in Australia, the only one of the three you mentioned that can be materially improved by Australians is the situation of the Australian aborigines. It should be a given, then, that their situation is given the main consideration. I don't think Australians are in much of a position to do much for the Montagnards.

BTW - Japan's ethnic cleansing belonged to a period where it was the done thing. You need to understand that it's pointless arguing about the rights and wrongs of feudal societies, with a modern eye. We have different values, which, as superior as I believe them to be, can't be inferred onto people from different eras.

Why doesnt the left complain about aboriginals in non white countries? They never even get mentioned. If its pointless arguing about the rights and wrongs of feudal societies then what is the point of arguing against Terra Nullis in Australia? That was the accepted standard of the day. Isnt that double standards?

Ah... now we get to it. First you say the left accepted the Australian mission in East Timor... now it's the Indonesians where supposed to be supporting? Get back to me when you've sorted it out.

Completely consistent old chap, I'll exlplain it to you. The Indonesians took over East Timor when Gough was pm. He did nothing about it and the Indonesians themselves said that they would have withdrawn if Australia opposed the invasion.

The Iron Curtain invasions you speak of are presumedly Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Just one question. When the Hungarians and Czechs were standing up for their national sovereignty and their human rights, where was the West? Where were the people who supposedly defend such ideals?

I don't know much about the Suez Crisis in 1956, but I think it had a lot more to do with economic than security concerns for the British and French.

I agree the west could have done more for the Hungarians and Czechs but it would have been risking another huge war. The west did come to the aid of Berlin when the USSR tried to cut it off and also supported white Russians in the civil war so the record wasnt all bad.

The Brits, French and Israelis all took action in 1956 to capture the Suez canal as Nasser was trying to nationalise it. Having your major shipping route stolen by a despot is a pretty big security concern.

Ok, if that is, as you claim, the 'assessment of the left', please show us your sources. Otherwise, say what it is: more ramblings from a paranoid, bitter right-wing nut.

Sources? Do you need to be a rocket scientist to know that the left opposes the current war in Iraq, doesnt like Pinochet, vietnam etc? As I said in my original post, the left would not necessarily support invasions like China into Tibet they would simply ignore it. Yet at the same time they would jump up and down about Suez which happened at about the same time. Ramblings? How can the words acceptable and bad be classified as ramblings? So anyone who points out the obvious hypocrisy of the left is parananoid, bitter and a right wing nut? This is typical of the left, being unable to mount a substantive argument they resort to pathetic name calling. BTW you left out narrow minded, bigoted and racist. Those generally appear in any left wing argument.

At least do us the courtesy of sorting out your argument, working out what you're trying to say and limiting the field of reference to the modern period.

I think its pretty darn obvious what I am trying to say. Double standards everywhere from lefties. The vast majority of conflicts I listed are in the last century, also see earlier point re aboriginal dispossession in Australia.

 

[skipper kelly]

Where is the 'Wars based on lies' category?

 

[CharlieG]

Australia invaded East Timor prior to a UN vote and if you held a referendum in Iraq asking if the wanted to get rid of Saddam, you dont think they would have voted yes? Nor would the Kurds and Shia vote for independence?

So you speak for the Iraqis, huh? The point is, they weren't asked, but the East Timorese were. That's why the situations aren't comparable.

The relevance is that the crusades kept being brought up by both the media and the muslim fundamentalists.

Sure. But you're talking about 'lefties' in Western societies. Not the media - which in this instance is only reporting on certain attitudes - or Muslim fundamentalists.

Well the people of the Falklands seemed pretty darn happy when the Brits recaptured the Islands. If its not about land, then why do the Palestinians complain about a fence being built on their territory?

Twisting words? Why am I not surprised. A) I was actually defending the British actions in the Falkland War, so I'm not quite sure what you're griping about. What I was saying is that there are fundamental differences about property-based motives - the Argentinians wanting the Falklands and the Israelis wanting the West Bank - and people based ones - the Brits protecting their citizens and the Palestinians wanting to retain their homeland.

It's perfectly ok for people with people-based motives to defend people's territory. It's not ok for people with land-based motives to attack people's territory.

Just as a sidenote - if you bothered to read my posts, you'd find that I oppose the Intifada. I'll let you ponder that, if it can penetrate the mindless twaddle.

Both China and the USSR an improvement on the previous system? You must be kidding. Millions died in the great leap forward and Stalin killed up to 30m of his countrymen. How is that better than what happened under the czar? The USSR produced less wheat in the 80's than it did pre revolution, that is how bad communism was. There may have been alot of corruption in Cuba but nobody could seriously argue the place is better off under Castro.

What do you know about those pre-revolutionary societies? Hmm? What do you know of conditions in China, of political repression in the Russian Empire? Evidently not much. I don't know why I argue with you lot... good practice I guess. You see communism as 'bad' and anti-communism as 'good', when in actual fact there's very rarely a 'good' involved at all.

By the way - the USSR in the 1980s had considerably more of their resources directed at industry than the agricultural economy of the Tsar.

Afghanistan fighting the USSR wasnt a war of independence? North Vietnam tried to take over the south in the same way North Korea tried to take over South Korea. One in the eyes of the left gets a muted acceptance the other is villified. If the South Vietnamese were so keen on "independence" then why did refugees flee in such large numbers? Fighting for independence from whom? When the US went there the South Vietnamese were already a sovereign state.

Govts that I support oppose the Kurds independence? Interesting extrapolation, not sure how you arrived there. Did Saddam oppose Kurd independence? Yep.

Pardon me, I was thinking of the war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Fair enough - the Afghan War was a war of national independence, albeit one that turned into a religious war. By the way - who do you think the 'Viet Cong' were?

I'll give you the answer, since I'm sure you won't go and look. They were South Vietnamese peasants - the majority subset of South Vietnamese society - and they were opposed to the urban elite that formed the various dictatorships in Saigon. It seems you still believe that the West should have fought in Vietnam to defend the people against themselves?

BTW - in case you don't know, the present Iraqi government - and the Americans holding the strings - also oppose Kurdish nationalism... and the Turks are willing to go to war over it. Me? As far as I'm concerned, if the Iraqi Kurds want to be a separate state from the Arabs, let them. If the Shia want to be separate from the Sunnis, let them.

You really are struggling here. When did China enter Tibet? When did the USSR enter the Baltic states and eastern Europe? I can give you a tip, it was in the last century. Thabo Mbekis brother came out last week and said that Africa was better off under colonial rule. Have you ever heard anyone from eastern europe or Tibet say that life was/is better under USSR/China rule?

Forgot about the Baltic states - that's just about the only point you win. Tibet, however, you should probably research a bit more. It was ALWAYS part of China, with the exception of literally a few months following the 1949 Revolution. Putting the finishing touches on a Civil War isn't quite the same thing as colonialism. Again, if the Tibetan people today want to be separate of the Chinese - my position would be 'let them'.

The Malayan emergency was fighting against the communists who were basically all Chinese and a minority of the population. The vast majority of people did not want communism which is basically the reason the conflict ended in the way it did rather than in a bloody mess. The vietnam and Korean wars were basically the same. If the south wanted communism so much then why were there so many refugees leaving the workers paradise?

You're probably right about Malaya - I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with it. As a general rule, if a revolution has mass support, the revolution will succeed. The point I was trying to make, though, was that it was another instance where the West just wouldn't let the decolonised states decide for themselves what their future would be, whether it was communist or capitalist. I'm reminded of the Kissinger quote... do you know what it is, Medusala?

I'd just love you to explain the phenomenon whereby the communists were the unpopular invaders, yet had the support and participation of the rural masses.

The Hugenots were still being thoroughly persecuted around the time the first fleet arrived here. If you are willing to argue that aboriginal dispossession is from a bygone era and that wik and mabo should never have occurred then fair enough, I will agree with you. Re Rwanda and Sudan, WTF did Kofi Annan and co do about them? Guilt by silence. Re Bosnia, so that part of the world counts and others dont? Christians killing muslims there is bad, muslims killing christians in Sudan is ok? I think Hitler being bad is a bit of a given.

And is France still the same sort of society it was pre-revolution? Of course not. I'm actually closer than you think to your view of Wik and Mabo. I'd MUCH prefer that the focus in aboriginal affairs was the shocking welfare conditions they suffer, rather than mostly symbolic Native Title (although it can do a lot of good for struggling communities who are lucky enough to be living on a thousand square kilometres of bauxite, for example). The point is that you have seen me as a lefty, and presumed that I support Native Title wholeheartedly. That's where your 'argument' completely falls over - where someone like me agrees with you. Not where they disagree, but where they agree.

Why doesnt the left complain about aboriginals in non white countries? They never even get mentioned. If its pointless arguing about the rights and wrongs of feudal societies then what is the point of arguing against Terra Nullis in Australia? That was the accepted standard of the day. Isnt that double standards?

Completely ignored what I said about effective protest, didn't you?

Where are the Aussies campaigning about American Indian issues? Where are the Aussies who are dreadfully concerned about the New Zealand Maoris? Hmm?

Completely consistent old chap, I'll exlplain it to you. The Indonesians took over East Timor when Gough was pm. He did nothing about it and the Indonesians themselves said that they would have withdrawn if Australia opposed the invasion.

Now, 'old chap', where's your source backing up that statement? If you can show it's true - interesting - but I'm not going to assume you're right unless you show me why.

I agree the west could have done more for the Hungarians and Czechs but it would have been risking another huge war. The west did come to the aid of Berlin when the USSR tried to cut it off and also supported white Russians in the civil war so the record wasnt all bad.

The Brits, French and Israelis all took action in 1956 to capture the Suez canal as Nasser was trying to nationalise it. Having your major shipping route stolen by a despot is a pretty big security concern.

Ah... so there's more to this war business than 'good wars' and 'bad wars' after all? Interesting development. So the West only have an obligation to help people when it won't risk a war with the Russians, huh? So much for this 'moral authority' stuff... perhaps it's a reasonable extraprolation, from that position you've taken, to suggest that wars should only be fought if you know you'll win? In which case, how can there be a pre-emptive war to stop a true threat to national security? Hmm.

Nasser wasn't going to fire nukes at Britain from the Suez Canal, buddy. And by the same token, would it not have been a concern for the Egyptians that an important potential barrier against it's major enemy (for better or worse) was controlled by countries seen (again, for better or worse) as supporting that enemy?

Economic interests and national security are different things. You can't even point at colonies for the national security justification you seek. The only important British colony remaining in that direction by '56 was Singapore - a naval base of it's own.

Sources? Do you need to be a rocket scientist to know that the left opposes the current war in Iraq, doesnt like Pinochet, vietnam etc? As I said in my original post, the left would not necessarily support invasions like China into Tibet they would simply ignore it. Yet at the same time they would jump up and down about Suez which happened at about the same time. Ramblings? How can the words acceptable and bad be classified as ramblings? So anyone who points out the obvious hypocrisy of the left is parananoid, bitter and a right wing nut? This is typical of the left, being unable to mount a substantive argument they resort to pathetic name calling. BTW you left out narrow minded, bigoted and racist. Those generally appear in any left wing argument.

What a load of drivel. First, you've picked out three of the more obvious things you chose to waffle on about and then used them to justify your blanket statement over the rest of the irrelevent and just plain wrong tripe you've posted.

Then you go on to say 'they would simply ignore Tibet. Yet at the same time they would jump up and down about Suez'... again, plain and utter garbage. How many rusty old Nissan Pulsars do you see with 'Free Tibet' stickers on their rear windscreens? As for Suez... well, the only time that EVER gets brought up in political debates is if it gets tangled up in the myriad Israel-Palestine sagas.

Names? Yeah, I'm calling you names, I suppose. In response, of course, to blanket statement drivel. Sorry, I can't really respect your opinions when half are mindless and the other half are imagined. As for narrow-minded, bigoted and rascist, I'm saving them up for when you start to get hot under the collar.

 

[Darealrath]

2nd Punic. Any war that had Cannae is a good war.

 

[dan warna]

My opinion

Wars to take control of an oil resource:
Iraq - bad (the iraqi's don't want us there, every poll says they want us out)

War to liberate a population:
East Timor - acceptable, the east timorese have been begging labour and liberal government for nearly 30 years to help them, they are greatful to australia

Wars to spread your own religion
Crusades - bad - fruitloop uneducated religious nuts on a rampage through the middle east, a bit like bush today!
Mohammedan armies - originally in the 7th century the early islamic followers were fighting for their survivial. Many of the early conversions to Islam were done voluntary. Early islam (that is pre the conquest by the mongols armies) was a quite enlightened religion, and embraced christianity, judiasm and zorastrianism (in fact any other monoethiast religion). A long and bloody war with badly educated and poorly armed/armoured christians, left them pretty drained militaristically and economically by the time the mongol hoards came. It is interesting that when the last crusades arrived at constantinople, the sacked the city and slaughtered thousands, yet when saladin the IV (I think again my history is lacking in certainty) took constaniple he hung two of his soldiers for violating the Justinians masterpiece cathederal and forbade looting or raping. I fact many christian nuns and priests would travel to bagdad or other islamic cities to meet with islamic scholars or attend their universities!
Timurlane - bad - one of the great generals of the middle ages, but I think finally defeated by an alliance forged by the venetians (I am doing this by memory so I could be wrong)
Moghuls - bad (the islamacised mongul army swept east conqueriring northern india and then spreading south. Except west of the indus (pakistan) and eastern india (bangaladesh), they never really converted indians en masse, and settled down to a despotic rule, many moghul rules actually converted back to hindu. some 400 petty kingdoms in India in the 17th century I think it was

Wars to recapture territory that has been invaded
Falklands - good, the population living in the falklands were british citizens. while there maybe a geographic claim to the falklands by the argentinians, no argentine ever lived there till the brits colonised it, in falk it was an unpopulated island by my understanding. I think the argentinians were mad to waste resources on a a little hell hole like that.
Russia/Dagestan - bad - don't know anything about it.
Palestine - depends you are talking about.. when the brits and french gassed thousands of them to their death after ww1? (good old winnie churchill)

Revolutions/coups that end in widespread human rights violations
cuba - acceptable - the existing government was corrupt, unfortunately it was a replaced by a government that was only marginally better.
china - see cuba - however as the market economy takes control and the middle class evolves, democracy will emerge, even if it does occur slowly.
russia - a democracy has evolved out of the socialist state. Once corruption come under control and crime is reduced, the nation will progress. Under the hereditary ruler scheme, there was no hope for democracy.
iran - acceptable - the shah was a s h 1 t scumbag, the ayotollahs were marginally better, but not by much, if iran is left alone, i suspect the middle class will evolve a democracy of there own, they have a nucleaic democracy that is fighting for control from the theocracy and they are slowly winning. they will be better for leaving the shah and the ayotollahs behinds. suffered under the hand of saddam and the USA.
argentina - bad - democracy rarely has a chance
chile - bad - pinochet was an evil p r i c k. democracy is gathering strength in chile, but the losers, being the military and their corrupt heirachy are strugglign to wrest back control. democracy I hope wins out, along with the will of the people.
spain - bad

Wars of independence
afghanistan - acceptable - sure, shucking the soviets and now shucking the americans is hard. power unfortunately has been left in the hands of a bunch of war lords of varying degrees of scumbaginess. the folks there will find it very difficult to get anywhere when the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys are exactly the same and the americans back different warlords at different times.

vietnam - of course, after defeating the french, and then the americans, 30 odd years of isolation and economic vandalisms by the losing power didn't help much, but vietnam is struggle back to normalcy and hopefully democratic principles will evolve.
irian jaya - ??? why bad?
kurds - depends on which kurds... the kurds in southern turkey are terrorirst and the kurds in northern iraq are freedom fighters. although when saddam was an ally of the US, the kurds in the north of iraq were terrorists, or at best a destraction from the real war against the iranians... go figure.
kharen - bad (don't know)

Wars to invade your neighbour
Yom Kippur -acceptable
Iran/iraq - ????
6 days war - bad

Colonial expansion by war
China - bad
Russia - bad
England/france - bad

Wars to stop the spread of communisn
Korea - acceptable - maybe, korea is a bigger mess now, than if they had been left alone I think.
Malaya - again hard to say, the insurgents were fighting against colonialism, and although the brits slaughtered thousands, they were eventually booted out with their tail between their legs, leaving the country with a massive death toll.
Vietnam - communism was the product of years of occupation by the french, japanese and americans, the latter part of the war, they just wanted the americans out. I suspect if the americans left a lot earlier, the country would be further down the path to democracy and a market economy, but when 2 million of your population is wiped out trying to defend yourselves from a occupying force...

Civil conflict / ethnic and religious cleansing
ethnic cleansings are never acceptable

Conquest and mistreatment of aboriginal people
never acceptable, don't forget that the once thriving indian population of some 20 million native americans was reduced to somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 in a space of a few decades.

Invasions related to national security
Suez - bad
Iron Curtain - bad
Indonesia in East Timor - bad

basically most wars of invasion, conquest etc are bad.

 

[Dry Rot]

Funny how no-one has posted about Australia's most important war, and I'd say 'a Good War". In fact a Very Good War.

From Sudan to the Boer War and WW1, we fought far away wars for our British masters. But in 1941 war came home, with the fall of Singapore, surrender in the Phillipines, Dutch East Indies overrun, Darwin bombed, Sydney and Perth attacked.....

We defended ourselves in New Guinea and the Coral Sea, and were counter-attacking at the war's end.

I'm really surprised that no-one thought defending our country was "A Good War".

 

[medusala]

Twisting words? Why am I not surprised. A) I was actually defending the British actions in the Falkland War, so I'm not quite sure what you're griping about. What I was saying is that there are fundamental differences about property-based motives - the Argentinians wanting the Falklands and the Israelis wanting the West Bank - and people based ones - the Brits protecting their citizens and the Palestinians wanting to retain their homeland.

It's perfectly ok for people with people-based motives to defend people's territory. It's not ok for people with land-based motives to attack people's territory.

There was a large ethnic German minority in a number of Eastern european countries. Would this then justify Hitlers eastern expansion in order to bring these people in to a greater germany?

What do you know about those pre-revolutionary societies? Hmm? What do you know of conditions in China, of political repression in the Russian Empire? Evidently not much. I don't know why I argue with you lot... good practice I guess. You see communism as 'bad' and anti-communism as 'good', when in actual fact there's very rarely a 'good' involved at all.

By the way - the USSR in the 1980s had considerably more of their resources directed at industry than the agricultural economy of the Tsar.

Pre communist Russia was oppressive but was slowly getting better ie the serfs had been abolished and a number of reforms were introduced late in the 19th century. Did the czars kill 30m of their own people? At the time of the revolution Russia was the biggest exporter of wheat in the world. Under the communist it had to import wheat. How much use is freedom (not that they had it) if you cant feed yourself?


I'll give you the answer, since I'm sure you won't go and look. They were South Vietnamese peasants - the majority subset of South Vietnamese society - and they were opposed to the urban elite that formed the various dictatorships in Saigon. It seems you still believe that the West should have fought in Vietnam to defend the people against themselves?

Drawing a very long bow to say that the majority of the population in South Vietnam were actually viet cong. Didnt the democratically(ish) elected govt ask the US to help?

BTW - in case you don't know, the present Iraqi government - and the Americans holding the strings - also oppose Kurdish nationalism... and the Turks are willing to go to war over it. Me? As far as I'm concerned, if the Iraqi Kurds want to be a separate state from the Arabs, let them. If the Shia want to be separate from the Sunnis, let them.

Kurds are and probably will enjoy defacto independence.

Forgot about the Baltic states - that's just about the only point you win. Tibet, however, you should probably research a bit more. It was ALWAYS part of China, with the exception of literally a few months following the 1949 Revolution. Putting the finishing touches on a Civil War isn't quite the same thing as colonialism. Again, if the Tibetan people today want to be separate of the Chinese - my position would be 'let them'.

Tibet was basically independent from the fall of the last emperor and periodically throughout its history.

What about the eastern bloc? I think its fair enough to place "satellites" in the same category as "colonies".



You're probably right about Malaya - I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with it. As a general rule, if a revolution has mass support, the revolution will succeed. The point I was trying to make, though, was that it was another instance where the West just wouldn't let the decolonised states decide for themselves what their future would be, whether it was communist or capitalist. I'm reminded of the Kissinger quote... do you know what it is, Medusala?

I'd just love you to explain the phenomenon whereby the communists were the unpopular invaders, yet had the support and participation of the rural masses.

They didnt have the support of the rural masses. They had the support of the ethnic Chinese. If they had the support and participation of the rural masses they probably would have won.

Completely ignored what I said about effective protest, didn't you?

didnt really see the relevance to the topic


Now, 'old chap', where's your source backing up that statement? If you can show it's true - interesting - but I'm not going to assume you're right unless you show me why.

I think it was Ali Atlas who said it but not 100% sure. There have been numerous claims that both the US and Australia had prior knowledge re the invasion and Indonesia was well aware of their attitude of not interfering.



Ah... so there's more to this war business than 'good wars' and 'bad wars' after all? Interesting development. So the West only have an obligation to help people when it won't risk a war with the Russians, huh? So much for this 'moral authority' stuff... perhaps it's a reasonable extraprolation, from that position you've taken, to suggest that wars should only be fought if you know you'll win? In which case, how can there be a pre-emptive war to stop a true threat to national security? Hmm.

I made no mention of whether I thought it was wrong or right merely a reason why the west didnt intervene.

Economic interests and national security are different things. You can't even point at colonies for the national security justification you seek. The only important British colony remaining in that direction by '56 was Singapore - a naval base of it's own.

One of the biggest security concerns a country has is its oil supplies. This was a major reason for Hitler entering Russia and Japan heading for Indonesia. Some may even say that the US is in Iraq due to oil concerns.

...

 

[CharlieG]

Medusala - can you please break your post into quotable sections, outside the original quote?

The last time I cut and pasted - it took far too long. I'm happy to respond, but please post in a way that's easier to respond to.

 

[medusala]

Here you go, laziness on my behalf.

Originally Posted by CharlieG

Twisting words? Why am I not surprised. A) I was actually defending the British actions in the Falkland War, so I'm not quite sure what you're griping about. What I was saying is that there are fundamental differences about property-based motives - the Argentinians wanting the Falklands and the Israelis wanting the West Bank - and people based ones - the Brits protecting their citizens and the Palestinians wanting to retain their homeland.

It's perfectly ok for people with people-based motives to defend people's territory. It's not ok for people with land-based motives to attack people's territory.

There was a large ethnic German minority in a number of Eastern european countries. Would this then justify Hitlers eastern expansion in order to bring these people in to a greater germany?

What do you know about those pre-revolutionary societies? Hmm? What do you know of conditions in China, of political repression in the Russian Empire? Evidently not much. I don't know why I argue with you lot... good practice I guess. You see communism as 'bad' and anti-communism as 'good', when in actual fact there's very rarely a 'good' involved at all.

By the way - the USSR in the 1980s had considerably more of their resources directed at industry than the agricultural economy of the Tsar.

Pre communist Russia was oppressive but was slowly getting better ie the serfs had been abolished and a number of reforms were introduced late in the 19th century. Did the czars kill 30m of their own people? At the time of the revolution Russia was the biggest exporter of wheat in the world. Under the communist it had to import wheat. How much use is freedom (not that they had it) if you cant feed yourself?

I'll give you the answer, since I'm sure you won't go and look. They were South Vietnamese peasants - the majority subset of South Vietnamese society - and they were opposed to the urban elite that formed the various dictatorships in Saigon. It seems you still believe that the West should have fought in Vietnam to defend the people against themselves?

Drawing a very long bow to say that the majority of the population in South Vietnam were actually viet cong. Didnt the democratically(ish) elected govt ask the US to help?

BTW - in case you don't know, the present Iraqi government - and the Americans holding the strings - also oppose Kurdish nationalism... and the Turks are willing to go to war over it. Me? As far as I'm concerned, if the Iraqi Kurds want to be a separate state from the Arabs, let them. If the Shia want to be separate from the Sunnis, let them.

Kurds are and probably will enjoy defacto independence.

Forgot about the Baltic states - that's just about the only point you win. Tibet, however, you should probably research a bit more. It was ALWAYS part of China, with the exception of literally a few months following the 1949 Revolution. Putting the finishing touches on a Civil War isn't quite the same thing as colonialism. Again, if the Tibetan people today want to be separate of the Chinese - my position would be 'let them'.

Tibet was basically independent from the fall of the last emperor and periodically throughout its history.

What about the eastern bloc? I think its fair enough to place "satellites" in the same category as "colonies".

You're probably right about Malaya - I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with it. As a general rule, if a revolution has mass support, the revolution will succeed. The point I was trying to make, though, was that it was another instance where the West just wouldn't let the decolonised states decide for themselves what their future would be, whether it was communist or capitalist. I'm reminded of the Kissinger quote... do you know what it is, Medusala?

I'd just love you to explain the phenomenon whereby the communists were the unpopular invaders, yet had the support and participation of the rural masses.

They didnt have the support of the rural masses. They had the support of the ethnic Chinese. If they had the support and participation of the rural masses they probably would have won.

Completely ignored what I said about effective protest, didn't you?

didnt really see the relevance to the topic

Now, 'old chap', where's your source backing up that statement? If you can show it's true - interesting - but I'm not going to assume you're right unless you show me why.

I think it was Ali Atlas who said it but not 100% sure. There have been numerous claims that both the US and Australia had prior knowledge re the invasion and Indonesia was well aware of their attitude of not interfering.

Ah... so there's more to this war business than 'good wars' and 'bad wars' after all? Interesting development. So the West only have an obligation to help people when it won't risk a war with the Russians, huh? So much for this 'moral authority' stuff... perhaps it's a reasonable extraprolation, from that position you've taken, to suggest that wars should only be fought if you know you'll win? In which case, how can there be a pre-emptive war to stop a true threat to national security? Hmm.

I made no mention of whether I thought it was wrong or right merely a reason why the west didnt intervene.

Economic interests and national security are different things. You can't even point at colonies for the national security justification you seek. The only important British colony remaining in that direction by '56 was Singapore - a naval base of it's own.

One of the biggest security concerns a country has is its oil supplies. This was a major reason for Hitler entering Russia and Japan heading for Indonesia. Some may even say that the US is in Iraq due to oil concerns.

 

[BlueMark]

Heres how I see it.

Any war of aggression against another state or people must be resisted.

Thus I have supported the British retaking of the Falklands, the Liberation of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, the UN defence of Sth Korea.

I have condemned the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the US invasion of Panama, The current Iraq War, the continuing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

That said there is no such thing as a good war, they are all horrid and the instigators must be made to answer thier crimes before a independant war crime tribunal. No matter who they are.

 

[TheBloods]

F*** there is an awful lot of confused history here!

 

[CharlieG]

F*** there is an awful lot of confused history here!

I'm going to respond to Medusala's new comments tomorrow (resisting the temptation to invoke Godwin's law)... but I'd prefer if you clarified this, as I presume it refers to my comments as much as Medusala's. So... what am I confused about?

 

[TheBloods]

I'm going to respond to Medusala's new comments tomorrow (resisting the temptation to invoke Godwin's law)... but I'd prefer if you clarified this, as I presume it refers to my comments as much as Medusala's. So... what am I confused about?

It was actually not specifically in reference to anyone in particular. I just glanced down the thread, without paying too much attention to who was writing, and noted a lot of rather strange versions of history.

However, the thread has gone too long and is too detailed to be bothered to comment in any detail. Also, given previous discussions on this sort of thing, I really can't be bothered as unfortunately it achieves little.

 

[Leper]

As Peter Garrett once said....

Conquistador of Mexico
The Zulu and the Navaho
The Belgians in the Congo short memory
Plantation in Virginia
The Raj in British India
The deadline in South Africa short memory

Short memory, must have a short memory

The story of El Salvador
The silence of Hiroshima
Destruction of Cambodia short memory

Short memory, must have a short memory

The sight of hotels by the Nile
The designated Hilton style
With running water specially bought short memory.

Short memory, must have a short memory

A smallish man Afghanistan
A watch dog in a nervous land
They're only there to lend a hand short memory
The friendly five a dusty smile
Wake up in a sweat at dead of night
And in the tents new rifles, hey, short memory

 

[CharlieG]

Cheers for the re-post.

Here you go, laziness on my behalf.

Originally Posted by CharlieG




There was a large ethnic German minority in a number of Eastern european countries. Would this then justify Hitlers eastern expansion in order to bring these people in to a greater germany?

Ambivalent on this. In general terms, my position on such things is: 'whatever the people want'. Therefore, if the Sudeten Germans and the Austrians wanted into Germany, in theory I wouldn't have a problem with it. This particular instance, however, is one where a subset of the population had a massive amount to lose. With the benefit of hindsight, everybody (except the neo-Nazis of course) would oppose Hitler's expansion. At the time - well, I'm not sure what I would have said at the time.

Pre communist Russia was oppressive but was slowly getting better ie the serfs had been abolished and a number of reforms were introduced late in the 19th century. Did the czars kill 30m of their own people? At the time of the revolution Russia was the biggest exporter of wheat in the world. Under the communist it had to import wheat. How much use is freedom (not that they had it) if you cant feed yourself?

Huh? Are you implying that the average Russian was well-fed before 1917? The February Revolution of that year had it's genesis in bread shortages. Just because the country as a whole was a net exporter, doesn't mean that domestic consumption - which is far more important because it has to do with actual economic benefits to the peasants - was any higher. Obviously, there were the famines during the Civil War and the Ukrainian genocide, which I'm not defending... but the fact is famines have been fairly common wherever low-tech agriculture is the basis of the economy. That includes both pre- and post-revolutionary Russia.

Your suggestion that the people couldn't feed themselves, meanwhile, is false; this site points out that it wasn't consumption in the Soviet economy that was the problem. The economy stagnated, and I've argued in the past on this site that this was the cause of the fall of the USSR. But consumption of red meat - to use the example provided by the article - was above that of Sweden and Norway and not far behind the United Kingdom.

Drawing a very long bow to say that the majority of the population in South Vietnam were actually viet cong. Didnt the democratically(ish) elected govt ask the US to help?

I'm not saying the majority of the population were guerillas, but I AM saying that a significant enough percentage of the population supported the NLF for them to beat not only the RVN forces but also the Americans, Australians and other Allied forces fighting in the country. These people were peasants in South Vietnamese villages. Now, could a minor insurgency fight off such an alliance for ten years, if they didn't have significant mass support?

Kurds are and probably will enjoy defacto independence.

Ah. So, it's ok for the West to decide who gets independence, and in this case, how much? What if the Kurds wanted more than de facto independence? That conflicts with US objectives in the region. Should they get it, or not? What do YOU think, Medusala? What's more important? US objectives, or Kurdish ones?

Tibet was basically independent from the fall of the last emperor and periodically throughout its history.

Sure. During the warlord period, the entire country was 'independent' because there was no effective central government. However, you don't see people jumping up and down that the Chinese Communists stamped on the 'independence' of Guangzhou or Manchuria, despite the fact that these areas were periodically independent of any central government.

Could it be that the Communists left Tibet until last, and as a consequence it has been portrayed not as part of the Civil War but as an aggressive act? And, if Tibet was 'independent', what about Slovakia in WW2? The South in the US Civil War?

What about the eastern bloc? I think its fair enough to place "satellites" in the same category as "colonies".

Medusala! I didn't know you were a lefty! So... do you want to discuss the implications of describing the Eastern bloc as a collection of colonies? What then, does it make the American satellite states that have conformed with American policy since World War 2?

By your logic, it makes them "colonies", and that makes America an "empire".

They didnt have the support of the rural masses. They had the support of the ethnic Chinese. If they had the support and participation of the rural masses they probably would have won.

Exactly, Medusala. You've proven my point beautifully. If they didn't have mass support, why was intervention necessary? Why couldn't the West simply leave Malaya to work out it's own problems? As I said, the same problems as Vietnam, but on a smaller scale. In Malaya, the West would have been happy with the outcome, but they were too scared that they wouldn't be that they just had to enforce their view anyway.

didnt really see the relevance to the topic

Then it's apparent that I'm pretty much wasting my time. You're talking about what you see as Left-wing positions. I've explained why they are so. You've said you don't see the relevance. Therefore, you are unwilling to hear any conflicting views, or to make any sort of attempt at refining your preconceptions to arrive at a truth that we can both agree upon. So what's the point trying?

I think it was Ali Atlas who said it but not 100% sure. There have been numerous claims that both the US and Australia had prior knowledge re the invasion and Indonesia was well aware of their attitude of not interfering.

I'll give you a tip that comes from bitter experience. Make sure that you've got your evidence ready before you make rash statements. I'm happy enough to bow to superior knowledge, if you can show me that it's true. If you can't, I can't help but see it as unsupportable rambling.

I made no mention of whether I thought it was wrong or right merely a reason why the west didnt intervene.

Uh huh, and now you're trying to dodge the obvious implications of your statement for current conflicts.

One of the biggest security concerns a country has is its oil supplies. This was a major reason for Hitler entering Russia and Japan heading for Indonesia. Some may even say that the US is in Iraq due to oil concerns.

Some may say it indeed! But then the question - since you've dragged up the concepts of 'good wars' and 'bad wars' yourself - is whether oil is an acceptable motivation for war. The position of most lefties I know is that it isn't. What's your position?