Society/Culture Lest we forget

[Lance Uppercut]

Mate how do u know if we (western nations) didn't oppose the Vietcong as much as we did that communism would of spread right through Asia... im with Cam here its ok to say 30 odd years after the conflict that it was an absolute waste of time.

sorry, no, that's bullshit.

The "domino effect" was as much an ideological cloak as is today's War On Terror.

It's nothing more than fair-mongering rhetoric designed to facilitate the Great Game & consolidate the strategic interests of Western powers.

Neo-colonialism at it's finest

 

[TheBloods]

Disagree. It wasn't an "ideological cloak" nor neo-colonialism - it was a fundamental misunderstanding of what was happening in the world.

 

[medusala]

My post was based on the implication that Medusala supported conscription.

Perhaps I should have written 'Med's brand of libertarianism'.

Implication? It was a question not a statement of support.

I thought that was rather obvious.

 

[medusala]

As I've said, my previous reading has suggested there was not a strong nationalistic view across all of Vietnam as people like to claim, which is not surprising as it was rarely united into a single, independent state in its history.

It is a bit of a leap to attempt to claim that the majority in the South were in favour of communist rule being imposed by the North, particularly in the cities. By the time of US troop withdrawal there wasnt that much support for the VC and they did not control that much territory.

The South was beaten by the NVA not by a popular uprising.

The "domino effect" was as much an ideological cloak as is today's War On Terror.

It's nothing more than fair-mongering rhetoric designed to facilitate the Great Game & consolidate the strategic interests of Western powers.

Neo-colonialism at it's finest

WTF???

Both Russia and China were funding communist insurgency across Asia (and further afield).

Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, Vietnam and Burma all had major issues in this respect. It is hardly far fetched to imagine a situation whereby Thailand, Malaysia and even Indonesia fell to communism.

One wonders how this equates to neo colonialism.

 

[fairdinkum]

Implication? It was a question not a statement of support.

I thought that was rather obvious.

Alright then.

Yes or no: Do you support conscription in times of war?

 

[medusala]

Alright then.

Yes or no: Do you support conscription in times of war?

Not particularly no. With respect to Vietnam I have heard it mentioned numerous times that Australian troops were not impressed by the ability and attitude of US conscripts.

However the point is in a major conflict how many troops could Australia put in the field without conscription? I doubt it would be many. I suspect there is a trade off.

 

[fairdinkum]

Not particularly no. With respect to Vietnam I have heard it mentioned numerous times that Australian troops were not impressed by the ability and attitude of US conscripts.

However the point is in a major conflict how many troops could Australia put in the field without conscription? I doubt it would be many. I suspect there is a trade off.

Not very decisive there, Meds.

Sounds like you are saying you don't like it, but if it is 'necessary', you'd support it.

 

[medusala]

Not very decisive there, Meds.

Sounds like you are saying you don't like it, but if it is 'necessary', you'd support it.

Not really. Just an acceptance that there is a downside.

It is a bit like saying I am against Hawthorn playing games in Tas (which I am) but the downside of playing all games at the MCG is that the club will lose some cash (though nowhere near as much as many claim).

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[fairdinkum]

Not really. Just an acceptance that there is a downside.

It is a bit like saying I am against Hawthorn playing games in Tas (which I am) but the downside of playing all games at the MCG is that the club will lose some cash (though nowhere near as much as many claim).

I hope that clears it up for you.

Oh, okay. So you are absolutely, 100% against conscription, then?

In that case I humbly retract my earlier smart-arsed remark re libertarianism.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

WTF???

Both Russia and China were funding communist insurgency across Asia (and further afield).

Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, Vietnam and Burma all had major issues in this respect. It is hardly far fetched to imagine a situation whereby Thailand, Malaysia and even Indonesia fell to communism.

actually, it's not too distant from far-fetched. It never happened. Russia and China were certainly funding and agitating for communist coup de tats, just as the US and NATO were on the other side of the fence. You're not going to tell me that all of this insidious communist march was stopped by a war that was lost, and lost convincingly, by "our" side, are you?

At the end of the day, history shows it was all an ideological proxy battle - a fear inspired campaign to consolidate the interests of the great & powerful on both sides. We were never in danger of "reds under the bed", just as we are under no existential threat from terrorism.

Australia were a pawn in Vietnam, like they were a pawn at Gallipoli, in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and now Afghanistan. We aren't protecting our interests or our homeland, we're protecting the interests of others. We are pawns in the great game, and we are constantly lied to to legitimise this process.

I'll say it again. Like the War on Terror, the Domino Effect was an abstract implement used to legitimise ideology and increase the consolidation of power.

The only time we faced a true existential threat was in WWII, and even then it's doubtful whether the Japanese actually planned to invade Australia, as its massive land-mass, coastal mileage and inhospitable terrain would have made an invasion virtually impossible anyway; particularly given the constraints placed on their forces by the fact they were fighting on multiple fronts

 

[TheBloods]

actually, it's not too distant from far-fetched. It never happened. Russia and China were certainly funding and agitating for communist coup de tats, just as the US and NATO were on the other side of the fence. You're not going to tell me that all of this insidious communist march was stopped by a war that was lost, and lost convincingly, by "our" side, are you?

At the end of the day, history shows it was all an ideological proxy battle - a fear inspired campaign to consolidate the interests of the great & powerful on both sides. We were never in danger of "reds under the bed", just as we are under no existential threat from terrorism.

actually, it's not too distant from far-fetched. It never happened. Russia and China were certainly funding and agitating for communist coup de tats, just as the US and NATO were on the other side of the fence. You're not going to tell me that all of this insidious communist march was stopped by a war that was lost, and lost convincingly, by "our" side, are you?

At the end of the day, history shows it was all an ideological proxy battle - a fear inspired campaign to consolidate the interests of the great & powerful on both sides. We were never in danger of "reds under the bed", just as we are under no existential threat from terrorism.

Australia were a pawn in Vietnam, like they were a pawn at Gallipoli, in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and now Afghanistan. We aren't protecting our interests or our homeland, we're protecting the interests of others. We are pawns in the great game, and we are constantly lied to to legitimise this process.

I'll say it again. Like the War on Terror, the Domino Effect was an abstract implement used to legitimise ideology and increase the consolidation of power.

The only time we faced a true existential threat was in WWII, and even then it's doubtful whether the Japanese actually planned to invade Australia, as its massive land-mass, coastal mileage and inhospitable terrain would have made an invasion virtually impossible anyway; particularly given the constraints placed on their forces by the fact they were fighting on multiple fronts

I hate this sort of perfect hindsight historical analysis. If only the people making the decisions at the time had the knowledge of how it would work out like some person loking at it many years later...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I hate this sort of perfect hindsight historical analysis. If only the people making the decisions at the time had the knowledge of how it would work out like some person loking at it many years later...

oh absolutely. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you completely.

I am certainly commenting the benefit of hindsight, & I'm sure things looked completely differently when it was in the throes. People didn't make these decisions lightly - including those in charge. It was a different world; information was tightly controlled, and there was the omnipresent threat of world annihilation. I understand that & I'm not trying to de-legitimise the heroics of many ordinary people.

However, one would hope that an understanding of history allows you to avoid the mistakes of the past in the future. Oops, damn, I think that was another one of those bland cliches you were on at me about!

 

[TheBloods]

No, that made more sense!

 

[Richo83]

Libertarianism doesn't promote warring for national causes; if anything it argues against the State in favour of individualism.

Quoted for truth, which is why if med was a libertarian, he'd oppose conscription in all it's forms, since it's an denial of freedom.

 

[medusala]

Australia were a pawn in Vietnam, like they were a pawn at Gallipoli, in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and now Afghanistan. We aren't protecting our interests or our homeland, we're protecting the interests of others. We are pawns in the great game, and we are constantly lied to to legitimise this process.

I would vehemently disagree with this. Take WWI for example. Australia's interest were threatened by Germany and the attack on our biggest trading partner and source of capital.

Who could argue that a non communist Asia was/is not in Australia's best interests?

A stable Middle East is also in Australia's best interests. Noone wants another oil crisis as per the 70s.

You may claim that does not justify going to war. I would readily accept that is an arguable case, however, that is far different from saying there are no Australian security/economic interests involved in those situations

 

[skilts]

Australia were a pawn in Vietnam, like they were a pawn at Gallipoli, in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and now Afghanistan. We aren't protecting our interests or our homeland, we're protecting the interests of others. We are pawns in the great game, and we are constantly lied to to legitimise this process.

The only time we faced a true existential threat was in WWII, and even then it's doubtful whether the Japanese actually planned to invade Australia, as its massive land-mass, coastal mileage and inhospitable terrain would have made an invasion virtually impossible anyway; particularly given the constraints placed on their forces by the fact they were fighting on multiple fronts

It has been asserted that, far from being pawns in the Vietnam conflict, Menzies sent a message to Johnson asking him (Johnson) to send a formal request for the assistance of Australian forces in Vietnam. This was not an idea that had previously crossed the US mind. Menzies was probably trying to make us minorly indispensable to the US. George W.'s (and LBJ's) positive utterances about the steadfastness of Australia's support of various US adventurisms, was something approaching what Menzies was hoping to achieve.

In early 1942, it was mooted in Japanese High Command discussions with their Emperor that Australia be invaded and occupied. Admiral Hashimoto argued vehemently against such a course of action. I think he said that it would require something like 16 divisions to maintain their occupation, making such a project untenable. Instead, they tried form a wall of occupied islands (read airfields) in a rim to the north of Australia, to harry US attempts to move troops and equipment into and out of our area. It was for this reason that New Guinea assumed some importance. Not nearly as important as the Coral Sea and Midway naval battles though.

I know this is not a major departure from what you wrote, and at the time, Curtin was not aware of the Japanese decision not to invade. That he was later aware of their decision, but kept telling Australians an invasion was imminent, was, IMHO, excusable. Until Darwin was bombed, our populace didn't take WW2 in the Pacific very seriously.

 

[dogupya]

that's pathetic. When Ali made the decision to object to fighting "brown people" he had no quarrel with, he was perfectly within his senses. You are being unbelievably patronising trying to transpose his current state with him in the '70s. Where do you get off rubbishing his rational ethical beliefs to fit in with your narrow minded argument? Unbelievable!

The war in Vietnam was a war about ideology. The Vietnamese posed NO danger to Australia. Therefore, we were not defending our homeland. We were conscripted by our government, to travel to a war & invade a country that had nothing to do with us.

You sneer at conscientious objectors. I sneer at you.

In fact, I pity you. Think for yourself FFS. "Your country will decide what's best for you". What a ****ing limp wristed bullshit statement to make. You must be some kind of autonomous unthinking nationalist drone who believes that every government decree must be obeyed.

I pity you.

So, if the government of the day - the "country", as you call it - decide you should pay 80% tax, is that fair? LOL! Go for it!

That an ideology you do not believe in can be forced on you under pain of imprisonment is a disgrace. That you must, despite your personal morality, invade another sovereign state and brutally kill their soldiers, citizens, women & children; despite them having posed no threat to you & yours, and you having no disagreement with them, is a disgrace. That, based solely on the day you were born, that you must violate your own deeply held moral beliefs based on the whim of a foreign power, is a disgrace.

I don't respect your opinion on this matter. Not one bit.

You ask which groups have grounds to refuse. I ask you, what foreign government has the right to demand that I fight their proxy battles? That I must kill people I have no quarrel with, for a meaningless strategic game played by politicians in their comfortable quarters who have no concept of the suffering of the common man. The Great Game. That I should violate deeply held beliefs at the whim of a 60 year old politician who is sucking the arse of another 60 year old politician. Yet you would.

You imbecile. You sucker. You are the puppet. Defend your homeland when it's needed. Don't invade others on the flimsy premise of ideology then try & belittle those that, unlike you, have the courage of their convictions.

*picking my jaw off the ground*

One of the most beautifully succint posts I have ever read.

A musashi bar for you young man!!