War Protestor

[Frodo]

Originally posted by AlfAndrews


And you are too ignorant to know that, by far, the vast majority of Australians killed in war have been volunteers. There was no conscription in World War 1 and the only conscripts used in World War 2 were those who directly defended Australia.

Ignorance is something you have with abundance Alf.
Of course from a simplistic viewpoint there was no conscription in world war 1 despite two referendums on the issue which were defeated, by a womens anti-war movement and the church. The referenda were vehemently fought. (1 087 557 in favour and 1 160 033 against) But the reality of the situation was that military training for Australian men aged 18 to 60 had been compulsory since 1911 and that the psychological aspect of such training ctreated a substantial enough volunteer force that the conscription issue was really of little importance for most of the war and by 1916 the deaths incurred had put the nation against it. There can, however, be no doubt that had a referendum been held at the beginning of the wat that conscription would have been a certainty.

As for the second world war you are wrong. CMF fought in Papua New Guinea.

read http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/doc/overview.asp

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by AlfAndrews

We remember in order not to forget

Brilliant Ducktor Alf. I sure enjoy paying my taxes to give you such a great education

Remembrance is about the privileged lives we lead today, the very society that gave you the right to your education and to speak your mind. We remember how lucky we are. And we remember those people who lay down their lives so that we have those priveleges.

For as long as mankind has existed there have been wars. Warring is a fundemental part of human genetics. We cannot run away from what we are. You war against others on these boards. Okay, it's not the taking of life here but that's another subject that encompasses everything from mass murderers to Zen Buddhists.

You owe your existence to your so called 'war pigs'

 

[S.J Rollin]

Originally posted by Frodo


CMF fought in Papua New Guinea.

read http://www.ww2roll.gov.au/doc/overview.asp

which was part of Australian sovereignty at the time.

With the Japanese advance over the Owen Stanley Range, it made perfect sense to send the militia there to stop them getting to Port Moresby. There was no point of keeping chocos on mainland Australia if the Japanese were capable of conducting an outright air offensive as far south as Sydney.

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by S.J Rollin


which was part of Australian sovereignty at the time.

With the Japanese advance over the Owen Stanley Range, it made perfect sense to send the militia there to stop them getting to Port Moresby. There was no point of keeping chocos on mainland Australia if the Japanese were capable of conducting an outright air offensive as far south as Sydney.

Whilst I agree with you Dr.Alf's comment was that conscripted troops were only used to "directly defend Australia'. He did not say Australia and it's sovereign states.

It is an interesting point though because a 'sovereign' state can only surely be one relating to the ruler, which of course was the governer general, who reported to the Queen. So arguably PNG was an English state.

 

[S.J Rollin]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Frodo

a 'sovereign' state can only surely be one relating to the ruler, which of course was the governer general, who reported to the Queen. So arguably PNG was an English state. [/QUOTE]

you have drawn a long bow there Frodo!

"Sovereingty" is a term which is just as appliacable with reference to a political state as it is to a monarch.

 

[fabulousphil]

I dont see a problem with conscription to defend ones country, it sure takes all kinds and while i can see the israeli refuseniks POV to a degree, i dont believe he is being realistic in the REAL world.

As ive posted before on another thread the history of the world is one of peace then war, create then destroy, a civilisation rises then falls, a recurring cycle IMO. This guy and others like him will (like it or not ) will be run over like deer in the headlights.

How will he feed his family then.

 

[Mobbs]

I presume I am missing something, as it seems clear to me that such folk as skilts are of the belief that those who went to war, were to a person all zealots of some wild attraction to kill/maim/slaughter/eradicate for purposes of societal domination and fearmongering.

Its true that I didn't know him at the time, but I can't for the life of me believe that my old man fits that description.

Sorry skilts, but if you think I should spend future Anzac days degrading the few memories I have by dancing in the streets through glee for the death of those soldiers who got what they deserved, via either death in battle or more naturally in their declining years, then I cannot conjure out of my mind the notion that you are a very evil person, indeed.

The exact sort of mindset that causes people who don't want to go to war, to go to war.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by fabulousphil
I dont see a problem with conscription to defend ones country, it sure takes all kinds and while i can see the israeli refuseniks POV to a degree, i dont believe he is being realistic in the REAL world.

As ive posted before on another thread the history of the world is one of peace then war, create then destroy, a civilisation rises then falls, a recurring cycle IMO. This guy and others like him will (like it or not ) will be run over like deer in the headlights.

How will he feed his family then.

Mmmmmmmm .... Road Kill

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by S.J Rollin
QUOTE]Originally posted by Frodo

a 'sovereign' state can only surely be one relating to the ruler, which of course was the governer general, who reported to the Queen. So arguably PNG was an English state.

you have drawn a long bow there Frodo!

"Sovereingty" is a term which is just as appliacable with reference to a political state as it is to a monarch. [/QUOTE]

It is a long bow but i think it's a fair one. You are quite correct in that it applies to a political state but only as far as that political state rules. As far as Australia was concerned then the government was not the ruler as it could be dismissed by the Queens representative aka Mr. Whitlam.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
I presume I am missing something, as it seems clear to me that such folk as skilts are of the belief that those who went to war, were to a person all zealots of some wild attraction to kill/maim/slaughter/eradicate for purposes of societal domination and fearmongering.

Its true that I didn't know him at the time, but I can't for the life of me believe that my old man fits that description.

Sorry skilts, but if you think I should spend future Anzac days degrading the few memories I have by dancing in the streets through glee for the death of those soldiers who got what they deserved, via either death in battle or more naturally in their declining years, then I cannot conjure out of my mind the notion that you are a very evil person, indeed.

The exact sort of mindset that causes people who don't want to go to war, to go to war.

If you were to interview the few survivors of WW1, as they did on Rememberance Day, in The Age, you would find they share my views. None of them would have gone to war, if they had their time over.

I accept you think I'm evil, but you are as stupid as your war-mogering relatives, if you think anyone who died in war is better off than me. They're DEAD and most unlikely to post on here. How stupid is that?

If you want to go to war, that's fine by me, just leave your girl friend's phone number, so she won't be lonely. When you come back in a box, I want you to sit up and tell us all about it. Then you'll be able to celebrate Remembrance Day as you wish, in the company of other imbeciles.

Not positing maniacal behaviour on these clowns' behalf, just incipient stupidity shared by you. It was people like you who convinced these people they had an obligation to be cannon fodder. Congratulations to you and your fellow-travellers.

 

[LibsWin]

Originally posted by skilts


I accept you think I'm evil, but you are as stupid as your war-mogering relatives, if you think anyone who died in war is better off than me. They're DEAD and most unlikely to post on here. How stupid is that?

If you want to go to war, that's fine by me, just leave your girl friend's phone number, so she won't be lonely. When you come back in a box, I want you to sit up and tell us all about it. Then you'll be able to celebrate Remembrance Day as you wish, in the company of other imbeciles.

The reason you're able to post on these boards is because valiant Australian soldiers died for you and your family! What an ungrateful sod for someone so old!

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Frodo
It is a long bow but i think it's a fair one. You are quite correct in that it applies to a political state but only as far as that political state rules. As far as Australia was concerned then the government was not the ruler as it could be dismissed by the Queens representative aka Mr. Whitlam.

More or less correct. Constitutionally, our PM is not the executive, the Governor General is, meaning our sovereignty is vested in him, which, given his status as the queen's representative, means that at least technically speaking, the sovereignty carries back through to the Queen
However, in reality, we have a very weird system. The link between the Queen and the GG is no longer credible. I don't think there has been a time at all in the last 50 years where the Queen has exercised any powers independently in relation to Australia, even during the Whitlam crisis, her advice to the Governor General was along the lines of 'do what you think best'. The really strange thing is that our Governor General, who I guess you would technically call the Executive arm of our government, doesn't really do much either. On paper he has very wide powers, but in practice they simply are not exercised except in the direst circumstances. I actually think there is a lot to be said for our 'absent head of government' system, because it prevents abuses of power- the Senate acts as a day-to-day executive, giving assent to laws and so forth, and the Governor General just stays the heck out of things. Given this convention, there is little chance of a Hitleresque despot abusing the position of GG, and at the other end of the scale, the Prime Minister lacks the trappings of legitimate power that comes from being a countries CEO, so that prevents him from getting above his station as well. So in reality, where is the sovereignty in Australia vested? Sorta in the PM, theoretically in Governor General, possibly in the Senate, somewhere around there, anyway, but the system gets by on common consensus amongst the various contenders, which works very well indeed. I doubt our government was planned to operate that way- indeed, the constitution appears to suggest something rather different, but as the last 100 years have proven, it works!

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by LibsWin


The reason you're able to post on these boards is because valiant Australian soldiers died for you and your family! What an ungrateful sod for someone so old!

It's because cretins like you call these nuff nuffs 'valiant' that others follow in their footsteps. They're DEAD, for no reason, especially those who died in WW1. They're not valiant, they're DEAD. They lose. If you don't believe me, ask the veterans.

The reason I'm able to post on these boards is because I have a computer and an internet connection. Pray tell me how this was facilitated by someone's death on some French paddock. BTW this board is American owned.

 

[AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by LibsWin


The reason you're able to post on these boards is because valiant Australian soldiers died for you and your family! What an ungrateful sod for someone so old!

That argument is complete bollocks.

How do you know that the Kaiser would not have allowed us to post on the internet?

Who knows what would have happened if the Nazis had won? Or if the Viet Cong had won ... er, hang on ... the Viet Cong DID win ... amazing!

Well ... here we are ... posting on the internet ... even though the Viet Cong won.

Your flimsy argument falls apart ... without me even having to say anything particularly intelligent. It's nice to know that even my stupidest thinking will destroy your best efforts.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by skilts
If you were to interview the few survivors of WW1, as they did on Rememberance Day, in The Age, you would find they share my views. None of them would have gone to war, if they had their time over.

I accept you think I'm evil, but you are as stupid as your war-mogering relatives, if you think anyone who died in war is better off than me. They're DEAD and most unlikely to post on here. How stupid is that?

If you want to go to war, that's fine by me, just leave your girl friend's phone number, so she won't be lonely. When you come back in a box, I want you to sit up and tell us all about it. Then you'll be able to celebrate Remembrance Day as you wish, in the company of other imbeciles.

Not positing maniacal behaviour on these clowns' behalf, just incipient stupidity shared by you. It was people like you who convinced these people they had an obligation to be cannon fodder. Congratulations to you and your fellow-travellers.

Of course no-one would have gone to war if they already knew what the experience was going to entail. But you have to go deeper than that, actually use your noggin and break the surface. No-one wanted to go, anyway. Oh, yeah, sure they were excited about the chance to serve, and proud of what they were doing, but they would have preferred that the need or opportunity didn't even exist.

There would, though, have been some gung-ho drongoes who might have been attracted to the power and the violence, its just a sad fact that some proportion are predisposed to this, this year as much as 1916 or 1941. Refusing to fight butcher-warmongerers is not going to outbreed this characteristic flaw.

My old man was one of these. I didn't get much time to talk to him about it, but although he was luckily enough to be simply a WAG on a biscuit bomber, and apparently never fired a shot, he was still disappointed that such a situation existed, and would have preferred that it didn't happen. So to call him a warmongerer or whatever your obvious passion misspelt it as is jut clearly untrue, and indicative of your need to strike a blow for your argument, rather than to deal with truth.

One thing that just bemuses me, is : "... if you think anyone who died in war is better off than me. They're DEAD and most unlikely to post on here. How stupid is that?"

Who said they were better off than you? The entire purpose of remembrance is to recognise that they are and were worse off, that they sacrificed an easier option so that 'wrongness' could not spread. Obviously not stupid, there was a need and they met it.

But in your world, the Gatlin boys would still be raping away at Old Yeller's girlfriend (much as you've alluded to in your support of producing suffragettes when you advise your willingness to wander over and perform Hitlerian atrocities upon my own wife). If you want to show me that I'm stupid for my stance, don't make comments like these which just express a picture of idiocy on your own part.

Its people like me that recognise that, as nasty as prospect was, there was a necessity to win the Great and 2nd WW. The enemy in each case were running around killing countries full of people for their own gratification. What's your solution? Let them go, because if we tried to do anything about it we'd be fighting, which is wrong? That's aiding and abetting genocide in some cases!

Maybe the wars were too far away from Australia for us to have got involved. This I liken to the neighbour beating his wife, being too tough or well armed for local policeman to step in, and yet we won't go over there to assist as that's not in our backyard.

You forget that just because you want to be nice, won't make the prick down the street want to be nice. And yet you call me stupid? You who admits publicly that you'd have no qualms setting designs on my missus if I went off to fight a war. I don't know whether to pee myself laughing, or organise a freaking intervention order! Its no wonder you're against fighting blokes like Hitler, you act like a damn supporter of such regimes.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by skilts
It's because cretins like you call these nuff nuffs 'valiant' that others follow in their footsteps. They're DEAD, for no reason, especially those who died in WW1. They're not valiant, they're DEAD. They lose. If you don't believe me, ask the veterans.

The reason I'm able to post on these boards is because I have a computer and an internet connection. Pray tell me how this was facilitated by someone's death on some French paddock. BTW this board is American owned.

For no reason? Such commentary is FREAKISH! Do you know how many lives they SAVED! Where would it have stopped, if no-one had stepped in?

They were valiant. They knew the risk, though they might not have realised about the lice and dysentry and so on.

Your alternative is for these mass genocidic dictators to have their way, right? If not, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by AlfAndrews
That argument is complete bollocks.

How do you know that the Kaiser would not have allowed us to post on the internet?

Who knows what would have happened if the Nazis had won? Or if the Viet Cong had won ... er, hang on ... the Viet Cong DID win ... amazing!

Well ... here we are ... posting on the internet ... even though the Viet Cong won.

Your flimsy argument falls apart ... without me even having to say anything particularly intelligent. It's nice to know that even my stupidest thinking will destroy your best efforts.

Alf, your point about Kaiser / us on net is valid. He probably wouldn't have minded us when he got to here, I mean we're sort of from similar stock. Though when he started killing off our next door neighbours for being jewish or some such, I and at a wild guess you would probably try to stand up to him, be killed, and not now be here posting on the internet.

Your point re Viet Cong is irrelevant. Were they posing a threat to nation after nation? Should we even have been there? Nope. Hitler was, therein lies the difference.

I appreciate your arguments much better than those if skilts, though. At least you're not outright siding with such as the Kaiser.

Aww, poor Addy.

 

[knuckles]

You can't post this crapola in China. Non-corporate or HK ISP has many times resulted in "404" when looking for BBC, TheAge( in some ways a blessing), Times, non govt endorsed chat rooms/bulletin boards etc. No probs in Taiwan (though could do without those dog meat ads!).
I look forward to your dissident street marches in China, Iran, Iraq, Singapore, Malaysia, Cuba, North Korea etc. Will follow with shovels and body bags.
Nothing to do with freedom and democracy of course.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by knuckles
You can't post this crapola in China. Non-corporate or HK ISP has many times resulted in "404" when looking for BBC, TheAge( in some ways a blessing), Times, non govt endorsed chat rooms/bulletin boards etc. No probs in Taiwan (though could do without those dog meat ads!).
I look forward to your dissident street marches in China, Iran, Iraq, Singapore, Malaysia, Cuba, North Korea etc. Will follow with shovels and body bags.
Nothing to do with freedom and democracy of course.

This a little incoherent for me ... want to give it another burl?

We wouldn't be allowed to have this sort of argument on a messageboard in China, because it would result in a '404' (page not found?) if we tried. Is that what you mean?

Whom of us are you likening to a dissident? Or, considering you are using cynicism there in follow-up, whom of us are you likening to a supporter of freedom and democracy?

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by knuckles
You can't post this crapola in China. Non-corporate or HK ISP has many times resulted in "404" when looking for BBC, TheAge( in some ways a blessing), Times, non govt endorsed chat rooms/bulletin boards etc. No probs in Taiwan (though could do without those dog meat ads!).
I look forward to your dissident street marches in China, Iran, Iraq, Singapore, Malaysia, Cuba, North Korea etc. Will follow with shovels and body bags.
Nothing to do with freedom and democracy of course.

I think what you are trying to say is that the Chinese authorities consider Big Footy to a subversive Western plot to undermine their authorian rule of law. And that the Chairman Jenin has instructed that all steps must be taken to eliminate this threat. Already they have spies infiltrating the boards, but I'm not sure who?

Frodo, Skilts, Mobbenfuhrer et al, watch out for anyone wanting tea and carrying ice-picks!

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer


Alf, your point about Kaiser / us on net is valid. He probably wouldn't have minded us when he got to here, I mean we're sort of from similar stock. Though when he started killing off our next door neighbours for being jewish or some such, I and at a wild guess you would probably try to stand up to him, be killed, and not now be here posting on the internet.

Wow, you're showing a breathtaking ignorance of what the Kaiser stood for, the causes of World War 1 and the likelyhood of us being invaded by Johnny Foreigner.

For starters, while the Kaiser was anti-semtic, he was hardly going around killing them. He did not like the Nazis and was shocked by the happenings of the krystalnacht.

Secondly the reasons behind the First World War are complex, but they were based around strategic alliances in a turn-of-the-century style mutually assured destruction that was triggered by the Austro empires declaration of war against Serbia following the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife. The Brits were as keen as ever to protect there own naval and economic dominance against a surging Germany. Interestingly George Bush has also outlined similar aspirations about keeping the US ahead of the pack.

And talking about the US, are you saying they were wrong in staying out of both World War's till they were themselves attacked?

 

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer


Of course no-one would have gone to war if they already knew what the experience was going to entail. But you have to go deeper than that, actually use your noggin and break the surface. No-one wanted to go, anyway. Oh, yeah, sure they were excited about the chance to serve, and proud of what they were doing, but they would have preferred that the need or opportunity didn't even exist.

There would, though, have been some gung-ho drongoes who might have been attracted to the power and the violence, its just a sad fact that some proportion are predisposed to this, this year as much as 1916 or 1941. Refusing to fight butcher-warmongerers is not going to outbreed this characteristic flaw.

My old man was one of these. I didn't get much time to talk to him about it, but although he was luckily enough to be simply a WAG on a biscuit bomber, and apparently never fired a shot, he was still disappointed that such a situation existed, and would have preferred that it didn't happen. So to call him a warmongerer or whatever your obvious passion misspelt it as is jut clearly untrue, and indicative of your need to strike a blow for your argument, rather than to deal with truth.

One thing that just bemuses me, is : "... if you think anyone who died in war is better off than me. They're DEAD and most unlikely to post on here. How stupid is that?"

Who said they were better off than you? The entire purpose of remembrance is to recognise that they are and were worse off, that they sacrificed an easier option so that 'wrongness' could not spread. Obviously not stupid, there was a need and they met it.

But in your world, the Gatlin boys would still be raping away at Old Yeller's girlfriend (much as you've alluded to in your support of producing suffragettes when you advise your willingness to wander over and perform Hitlerian atrocities upon my own wife). If you want to show me that I'm stupid for my stance, don't make comments like these which just express a picture of idiocy on your own part.

Its people like me that recognise that, as nasty as prospect was, there was a necessity to win the Great and 2nd WW. The enemy in each case were running around killing countries full of people for their own gratification. What's your solution? Let them go, because if we tried to do anything about it we'd be fighting, which is wrong? That's aiding and abetting genocide in some cases!

Maybe the wars were too far away from Australia for us to have got involved. This I liken to the neighbour beating his wife, being too tough or well armed for local policeman to step in, and yet we won't go over there to assist as that's not in our backyard.

You forget that just because you want to be nice, won't make the prick down the street want to be nice. And yet you call me stupid? You who admits publicly that you'd have no qualms setting designs on my missus if I went off to fight a war. I don't know whether to pee myself laughing, or organise a freaking intervention order! Its no wonder you're against fighting blokes like Hitler, you act like a damn supporter of such regimes.

Well said Mobbenfuhrer, skilts posts crap like this time after time.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Wow, you're showing a breathtaking ignorance of what the Kaiser stood for, the causes of World War 1 and the likelyhood of us being invaded by Johnny Foreigner.

For starters, while the Kaiser was anti-semtic, he was hardly going around killing them. He did not like the Nazis and was shocked by the happenings of the krystalnacht.

Secondly the reasons behind the First World War are complex, but they were based around strategic alliances in a turn-of-the-century style mutually assured destruction that was triggered by the Austro empires declaration of war against Serbia following the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife. The Brits were as keen as ever to protect there own naval and economic dominance against a surging Germany. Interestingly George Bush has also outlined similar aspirations about keeping the US ahead of the pack.

And talking about the US, are you saying they were wrong in staying out of both World War's till they were themselves attacked?

Jim Boy, I mentioned 'Kaiser' in reference to Alf's mention. I don't profess to know who in that regime was 'going around and killing them', but someone was, eh? I wouldn't have a clue who the Kaiser was, but I was speaking in the general reference to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

The 'secondly' is relevant to the subject matter but not relevant to the argument, whatever the Hapsburgs got up to is as it may be, but please don't try to start claiming that Nazi Germany never did run around trying to annex most of Europe and more to its ruthless, murderous empire, and that it never exercised mainstream killing off of entire races in the process, that it never performed wild atrocities which cause entire humankind to hang its head it some shame for the monsters we have created.

Talking about the US ... was who, again? The subject wasn't broached, but if you want my opinion (can't imagine why but you seem to have asked), yeah, I'd say they had the wherewithal to help put the stops on that blight, and possibly seemed to act a little too nimby. Haven't given that one much thought, though, actually. Jumping up and down and saying 'we fought better than you did' is only in the spirit of war, not in the spirit of ending war.

 

[jim boy]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer


Jim Boy, I mentioned 'Kaiser' in reference to Alf's mention. I don't profess to know who in that regime was 'going around and killing them', but someone was, eh? I wouldn't have a clue who the Kaiser was, but I was speaking in the general reference to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

The 'secondly' is relevant to the subject matter but not relevant to the argument, whatever the Hapsburgs got up to is as it may be, but please don't try to start claiming that Nazi Germany never did run around trying to annex most of Europe and more to its ruthless, murderous empire, and that it never exercised mainstream killing off of entire races in the process, that it never performed wild atrocities which cause entire humankind to hang its head it some shame for the monsters we have created.

Talking about the US ... was who, again? The subject wasn't broached, but if you want my opinion (can't imagine why but you seem to have asked), yeah, I'd say they had the wherewithal to help put the stops on that blight, and possibly seemed to act a little too nimby. Haven't given that one much thought, though, actually. Jumping up and down and saying 'we fought better than you did' is only in the spirit of war, not in the spirit of ending war.

What a rant!

Did I ever mention the second world war?, did I ever say anything in sympathy for the Nazis? Or are you just resulting to insult and slander because of your own inability to grasp the differences between the 2 world wars and the appropriate Australian response to each situation. And if it's coming down to trivialising and making light of nazi atrocities, then you are really not in a position to talk, Mobbenfuhrer.

 

[LibsWin]

Originally posted by AlfAndrews

without me even having to say anything particularly intelligent.

So what else is new, Alf? You have a Doctorate in footy history? LOL I weep for our education system! What a waste of taxpayers hard work.