Remembering the Veterans - Australian soldiers only? (1 Viewer)

[Serius]

Re: Turks allowed to march in ANZAC parade...why not the Germans?

How about only ANZACs and their decendants can march? i have no problem with the Turkish decendants marching either, for the time they showed a considerable amount of respect towards us. Considering gallipolli was the major place of australian deployment, its only fitting that we show the turks the same respect that they show us.

No one else can march, this is about WW1, not about nazis, japs or anyone else. correction: no other former enemies, i would have no problem if the decendants of those that faught with the australian forces marched aswell[namely GB and USA but others can aswell]

 

[spell check]

anzac day is such a farce

the ruling classes manipulated the workers and average australians who deserted their families to partake in the slaughter of other workers on an unprecedented scale and we celebrate it. nice one douchebags

ironically it will be invoked every time the ruling class feels the need to shit all over the world and use more millions of people as cannon fodder to secure their political and economic power.

sure the anzacs were brave, they thought they were doing something good. but they weren't. if anything we should burn australian flags on anzac day.

 

[loquasagacious]

Hahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhaha

 

[spell check]

you disagree?

 

[sparkl3z]

How about only ANZACs and their decendants can march? i have no problem with the Turkish decendants marching either, for the time they showed a considerable amount of respect towards us. Considering gallipolli was the major place of australian deployment, its only fitting that we show the turks the same respect that they show us.

No one else can march, this is about WW1, not about nazis, japs or anyone else. correction: no other former enemies, i would have no problem if the decendants of those that faught with the australian forces marched aswell[namely GB and USA but others can aswell]

i agree on this. i'm a turkish/australian citizen so i think it's great that they are marching together, shows that people from other countrys can be friends, even if they were fighting against eachother.....this friendship was right from the start, even while fighting i mean, they were all young men directed by somebody to attack.but they were what i define as humans....they have feelings...they had drinks/cigars with their so called enemies while they werent commanded by someone, you know, even though it is a war, i dont blame any of the soldiers for killing eachother..i just blame the political stuff.

it's just like one of the most important days for australia..nZ too, so i can understand y they dont want any other countries to march for it, i mean it was their first major war, it made them fight together as australia (even though it was sort of directed by england) after the war, it did give australia the actual identity, it was just really spiritful what they did for their country, and for turkey the friendship afterwards, for the country it was great for ataturk (people who've heard of him would know), because he went on to be the prime minister of turkey, and changed the country to a democracy as opposed to the ottoman way....so he basically modernised it, made it a free country where any religion and anything can be worn etc ~ brought womens rights back.

 

[loquasagacious]

you disagree?

Yes.

I don't really have time to get into a debate because i have essays to do, however yes I disagree, completely.

You are espousing some basic marxist tripe, some of the many problems with which are as follows:

Failure of marxism everywhere - ever.
Failure to recognise any level of intelligence in proletariats.
Failure to understand the international system.
Failure to recognise nationalism as bottom-up force.
Hypocrisy as every socialist/soviet/commie state has acted in the same way you allege our capitalist warmongers to have done so.
Acceptance of things that dont directly affect us - say Nazi germany, human rights abuses overseas, etc

Conclusion: You're wrong, goodbye.

 

[gerhard]

i dont really agrree with spell check but half of loq's points are terrible

 

[spell check]

I don't really have time to get into a debate because i have essays to do, however yes I disagree, completely.

You are espousing some basic marxist tripe, some of the many problems with which are as follows:

not only are your points terrible, your argument nonexistent and your conclusions absurd, but you didn't bother to explain why they are even relevant to this topic.

Failure of marxism everywhere - ever.

marxism failed to do what exactly? i would think that even a casual look at the world would show that marx's theories on capitalist exploitation and competition are accurate. just because communism hasn't happened doesn't mean it is 'incorrect' and capitalism has succeeded.

Failure to recognise any level of intelligence in proletariats.

perhaps soldiers and people in general who supported the war had too much trust in governments. it isn't a question of intelligence. didn't you just say marxism 'failed' anyway? yet you acknowledge class divides?

Failure to understand the international system.

please explain this? i am saying that the international system has been created and developed in certain ways by the powerful for their own gain. for example by creating and fostering an exclusive nationalist consciousness and suppressing class consciousness, governments can suppress social uprisings and dissent.

Failure to recognise nationalism as bottom-up force.

you'll have to do better than this statement.

Hypocrisy as every socialist/soviet/commie state has acted in the same way you allege our capitalist warmongers to have done so.

this is an absurd generalisation, but you are right to say that most states, be them capitalist or other (the soviet union was not communist), act in ways to foster nationalism and suppress social dissent, often at the expense of the people such as by sending them to die in wars. this is because all governments benefit from such sentiments, naturally.

but our discussion regards the australian state sending soldiers to die in ww1, not any others, so this is an irrelevant point.

Acceptance of things that dont directly affect us - say Nazi germany, human rights abuses overseas, etc

again this is totally irrelevant to the point, and you'll have to explain yourself better.

none of your arguments are relevant to my point that we should look back on ww1 with anger, not pride, that we shouldn't try to justify the losses of the soldiers by creating myths.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

spellcheck and anyone who agrees with him should go here.

Wouldn't click if you're easily offended, though.

 

[Gangels]

Re: Turks allowed to march in ANZAC parade...why not the Germans?

yeah, that just shows how stupid some people are......silly ppl...need to bash theirs head about until THEY LEARN!! lolz


oh oh oh!! also...Germans fought in The Great War too.

The Germans were not fighting on this day in 1915, they joined afterwards. And the respect that the Turks have shown the anzacs is enourmous. Plus, we invaded them, so they were teh victims really......in a way.

But the reason that they think Gallipoli is because it was the 25th of april, 1915 that australia had a mass evac out of Gallipoli. It was organised by australia, supervised by asutralia and completed by australia all in 3 days and that is what makes the day so proud. Australia fucked over, got ourselves out of it, british suck! The end

 

[loquasagacious]

Re: Turks allowed to march in ANZAC parade...why not the Germans?

not only are your points terrible, your argument nonexistent and your conclusions absurd, but you didn't bother to explain why they are even relevant to this topic.

Relevence is self evident and I didn't profess to be making an elaborate, intricate and all inclusive rebuttal.

marxism failed to do what exactly? i would think that even a casual look at the world would show that marx's theories on capitalist exploitation and competition are accurate. just because communism hasn't happened doesn't mean it is 'incorrect' and capitalism has succeeded.

Marxism has failed to do anything. No marxist states have been succesful, success has been (or is) transient and based on rentier factors. A casual an uninformed look may back your position however an informed and deeper look resoundingly disproves marx. Capitalism has won because capitalism works and communism doesn't.

This point was raised to undermine the docterinal foundations of your argument.

perhaps soldiers and people in general who supported the war had too much trust in governments. it isn't a question of intelligence. didn't you just say marxism 'failed' anyway? yet you acknowledge class divides?

Perhaps people elected their governments? It is a question of intelligence because you assume that the polity is basically unintelligent and completely held in the thrawl of governments and media unable to make a choice themselves.

An allegiance to marxism is not needed to acknowledge the existence of class divides. Class divides are an acknowledged fact of society, capitalist thinking recognises this and sees capitalism as the primary way of addressing this divide by improving the conditions of everybody.

And I used the term proletariat because you are a communist and I choose to speak your langauge.

please explain this? i am saying that the international system has been created and developed in certain ways by the powerful for their own gain. for example by creating and fostering an exclusive nationalist consciousness and suppressing class consciousness, governments can suppress social uprisings and dissent.

The international system is such that it was in Australia's national interest to be at Gallipoli and on the western front even though the war did not directly threaten Australia in any way. The international system was not developed by international financiers as a means of oppressing prols - it is not even a system per sae. It is simply how states act which is dictated by their national self-interest. If anything neo-liberal economics is a greater challenge to this than marxism ever was.

you'll have to do better than this statement.

Nationalism motivates wars. Nationalism is a bottom up force eg it has the support of the populace - it is not manufactured by governing capitalists but FELT by the people.

this is an absurd generalisation, but you are right to say that most states, be them capitalist or other (the soviet union was not communist), act in ways to foster nationalism and suppress social dissent, often at the expense of the people such as by sending them to die in wars. this is because all governments benefit from such sentiments, naturally.

but our discussion regards the australian state sending soldiers to die in ww1, not any others, so this is an irrelevant point.

So lets go and live in happy fairy land where there are no wars.

Every country sends soldiers to kill and be killed in wars because this serves the national interest. The populace agrees or there would be no war. So why then is it bad to remember those who have fallen?

again this is totally irrelevant to the point, and you'll have to explain yourself better.

Your position that we should not go to war unless it is in our direct national interest (and probably not even then because street rallies would be far more effective) ignores such principals of helping others. Under that logic we should not interevene to stop bloodshed in say the balkans. And we should have ignored nazi aggression and extermination as someone elses problem.

none of your arguments are relevant to my point that we should look back on ww1 with anger, not pride, that we shouldn't try to justify the losses of the soldiers by creating myths.

Why look back in anger? The futility of war? The pointless loss of human life?

I think that it does a great diservice and injustice to our armed forces to suppose that their losses were pointless. We fight wars for reasons, hence soldiers die for reasons.

Oh and Gh3y I don't know if you thought that would convince me to alter my position.... it did make me laugh again though - both at the argument and at the source.

 

[xeuyrawp]

i dont really agrree with spell check but half of loq's points are terrible

I don't agree with anything you say, but rather than refuting you point by point, I'm going to just say 'you suck' without any further clarification or extrapolation.

Since you agree with this method (see the quotation) I win the argument. Next?

 

[gerhard]

Its not I dont agree with loq, its that half the points were clearly straw men.

But spell_check was happy to argue loq's straw men so theres no real point me being in this argument now.

 

[spell check]

Re: Turks allowed to march in ANZAC parade...why not the Germans?

[QUOTE =loquasagacious]]Marxism has failed to do anything. No marxist states have been succesful, success has been (or is) transient and based on rentier factors. A casual an uninformed look may back your position however an informed and deeper look resoundingly disproves marx. Capitalism has won because capitalism works and communism doesn't.[/QUOTE]

if you look around the world you see massive inequality, wars, poverty, famine, environmental destruction and fear in general. this is capitalism 'working'?

Perhaps people elected their governments? It is a question of intelligence because you assume that the polity is basically unintelligent and completely held in the thrawl of governments and media unable to make a choice themselves.

you assume that people have to be stupid to be manipulated? there is an inherent power/knowledge imbalance between the people and their government which is constantly abused. you can hardly say that the people have to be unintelligent to be fooled. look at the iraq war for example.

An allegiance to marxism is not needed to acknowledge the existence of class divides. Class divides are an acknowledged fact of society, capitalist thinking recognises this and sees capitalism as the primary way of addressing this divide by improving the conditions of everybody.

And I used the term proletariat because you are a communist and I choose to speak your langauge.

i am a communist because i recognise that world war one was fought generally as an extension of the economic and political competition between the ruling classes of the european powers, which the australian elites felt it necessary to be a part of? this is historical fact, not theory.

The international system is such that it was in Australia's national interest to be at Gallipoli and on the western front even though the war did not directly threaten Australia in any way.

it would be nice if you could explain just how it was in australia's 'national interest' to be at gallipoli? or how ww1 was in the interest of anyone in general other than small powerful elites at the time.

The international system was not developed by international financiers as a means of oppressing prols - it is not even a system per sae. It is simply how states act which is dictated by their national self-interest. If anything neo-liberal economics is a greater challenge to this than marxism ever was.

who is to decide what the national selt-interest of a state is? i would suggest that historically it has been dictated to the people by the government, and because of the abuse of nationalistic myths such as the Anzac legend, they have swallowed it.
neo-liberal economics doesn't erode the power of governments to wage wars.

Nationalism motivates wars. Nationalism is a bottom up force eg it has the support of the populace - it is not manufactured by governing capitalists but FELT by the people.

nationalism is used by governments to legitimate wars, it does not motivate them in itself. unless you are arguing that the general population are irrational, violent racists?

So lets go and live in happy fairy land where there are no wars.

we will hardly be able achieve this when people like you can't even recognise past mistakes such as ww1.

Every country sends soldiers to kill and be killed in wars because this serves the national interest. The populace agrees or there would be no war. So why then is it bad to remember those who have fallen?

again, you fail to explain how this could possibly be in the national interest? it is not bad to remember those who have fallen, however it is an extremely bad perversion of their memory to create myths legitimising why they died, when we should recognise the truth and use it as a basis for change.

Your position that we should not go to war unless it is in our direct national interest (and probably not even then because street rallies would be far more effective) ignores such principals of helping others. Under that logic we should not interevene to stop bloodshed in say the balkans. And we should have ignored nazi aggression and extermination as someone elses problem.

clearly there would be no place for nationalism in humanitarian intervention if it were truly humanitarian and conducted on such principals.

Why look back in anger? The futility of war? The pointless loss of human life?

yes?

I think that it does a great diservice and injustice to our armed forces to suppose that their losses were pointless. We fight wars for reasons, hence soldiers die for reasons.

it does more of an injustice to our armed forces to send them to die for no reason and not even admit it. are you seriously arguing that all wars are fought for legitimate reasons and whenever soldiers die in them it is ok??

 

[loquasagacious]

Re: Turks allowed to march in ANZAC parade...why not the Germans?

if you look around the world you see massive inequality, wars, poverty, famine, environmental destruction and fear in general. this is capitalism 'working'?

This is a shallow look around the world. War is declining as countries develop. Poverty declines as people adopt capitalism. The world is getting better and it is capitalism not communism to thank for this.

Problems are caused by:
Ethnic conflicts upon which capitalism has no bearing.
Mercantilism by some western powers/corporations that violates capitalist docterine.
Transitional problems as countries develop.

you assume that people have to be stupid to be manipulated? there is an inherent power/knowledge imbalance between the people and their government which is constantly abused. you can hardly say that the people have to be unintelligent to be fooled. look at the iraq war for example.

We democratically elected the governments who 'fooled' us - if we do truly disagree then we would have voted them out, not back in. The marvels of accountability.

i am a communist because i recognise that world war one was fought generally as an extension of the economic and political competition between the ruling classes of the european powers, which the australian elites felt it necessary to be a part of? this is historical fact, not theory.

Oh its fact, in that case I revoke all disagreement - you win thread and also the world.

How was it not an extension of competition between european masses? All leaders enjoyed the popular support of their followers (bar the tsar but that was for unrelated reasons).

It was felt necessary by the Australian public to partake because of organic ties to england. Might I remind you of the volunteers who went to war. It was also felt necessary by foriegn policy elites as a means of paying our dues eg britain was the guarantor of our security, our end of the bargain being to support her in war.

it would be nice if you could explain just how it was in australia's 'national interest' to be at gallipoli? or how ww1 was in the interest of anyone in general other than small powerful elites at the time.

The war in europe was in our interest to partake in - see above. The turkish campaign was stategically important to this and hence it was necessary for us to be there.

So it was in Frances national interest to surrender? In britains to allow germany to dominate the european landmass?

Also logically speaking people dont do irrational things, the national interest is rational.

who is to decide what the national selt-interest of a state is? i would suggest that historically it has been dictated to the people by the government, and because of the abuse of nationalistic myths such as the Anzac legend, they have swallowed it.

The government is dictated to by the people, elections much?

neo-liberal economics doesn't erode the power of governments to wage wars.

Yes it does. It promotes interedependence which is not in the interest of 'state of war' autarky. It erodes nationalism which is a key basis for wanting to go to war.

So seeing as neo-liberal economics erode both the means and motive for war I would suggest it is anti-war.

nationalism is used by governments to legitimate wars, it does not motivate them in itself. unless you are arguing that the general population are irrational, violent racists?

How does it not motivate them? And isn't it a favoured position of the left to argue the population to be violent racists? See aboriginees, tampa, etc.

we will hardly be able achieve this when people like you can't even recognise past mistakes such as ww1.

But with docterines of world revolution and war we will?

again, you fail to explain how this could possibly be in the national interest? it is not bad to remember those who have fallen, however it is an extremely bad perversion of their memory to create myths legitimising why they died, when we should recognise the truth and use it as a basis for change.

Refer above.

clearly there would be no place for nationalism in humanitarian intervention if it were truly humanitarian and conducted on such principals.

What about the humanitarian argument for invading Iraq?

it does more of an injustice to our armed forces to send them to die for no reason and not even admit it. are you seriously arguing that all wars are fought for legitimate reasons and whenever soldiers die in them it is ok??

Basically yes. The vast majority of wars are fought for very good reasons. And while I do not like losses of soldiers they are expected and to an extent acceptable.

 

[spell check]

Re: Turks allowed to march in ANZAC parade...why not the Germans?

This is a shallow look around the world. War is declining as countries develop. Poverty declines as people adopt capitalism. The world is getting better and it is capitalism not communism to thank for this.

Problems are caused by:
Ethnic conflicts upon which capitalism has no bearing.
Mercantilism by some western powers/corporations that violates capitalist docterine.
Transitional problems as countries develop.

how can you say war is declining? please provide evidence.
i am in favour of capitalism over communism - vastly oversimplified - but neoliberalism in particular is making the world worse, not better.

i suggest you read a book called history before claiming capitalism has no bearing on conflicts

We democratically elected the governments who 'fooled' us - if we do truly disagree then we would have voted them out, not back in. The marvels of accountability.

the fact that these governments are not voted out merely reinforces my argument that they have manipulated the population effectively through things such as nationalism.

How was it not an extension of competition between european masses? All leaders enjoyed the popular support of their followers (bar the tsar but that was for unrelated reasons).

again, see above.

It was felt necessary by the Australian public to partake because of organic ties to england. Might I remind you of the volunteers who went to war. It was also felt necessary by foriegn policy elites as a means of paying our dues eg britain was the guarantor of our security, our end of the bargain being to support her in war.

so in order to guarantee our security, we had to send large numbers of people to be killed? doesn't make much sense?

The war in europe was in our interest to partake in - see above. The turkish campaign was stategically important to this and hence it was necessary for us to be there.

why exactly was a war on the other side of the world in our interest? how was the war in anyone's interest at all for that matter?

So it was in Frances national interest to surrender? In britains to allow germany to dominate the european landmass?

what would be better - to be ruled by a foreign government, or to die in a war? apparently these european powers weren't so worried about sovereignty and nationalism when they went about 'colonising' various continents and indigenous peoples all over the world.

Also logically speaking people dont do irrational things, the national interest is rational.

this has to be a joke? how can the national interest be rational, for example, when there are so many competing interests within nations? how can it be rational to consider it in the interests of a nation to invade another, when murder is considered the worst crime, domestically.

you can hardly say it was rationally in the national interest of the USA to invade iraq?

Yes it does. It promotes interedependence which is not in the interest of 'state of war' autarky. It erodes nationalism which is a key basis for wanting to go to war
So seeing as neo-liberal economics erode both the means and motive for war I would suggest it is anti-war.

ignoring the fact that neoliberalism has never been applied successfully to development, and is an absurdly flawed ideology, i would argue that even its original proponent - the USA - ignores most of its doctrines in favour of economic nationalism. you're lucky that this is true as well because if the USA did actually follow neoliberal policies, then you could hardly look at recent history and find any erosion of nationalism and warmongering.

How does it not motivate them? And isn't it a favoured position of the left to argue the population to be violent racists? See aboriginees, tampa, etc.

if anything the left allows for the possibility that the population are not inherently violent racists, but that they have been manipulated and their values constructed by certain powerful groups - ie the government - which benefits from these values. you are denying that this is true and therefore the only conclusion open to you is that the population is violent and racist.

but with docterines of world revolution and war we will?

is this a response to something i said?? i remember advocating peace, and you were the one who wanted to look back on past wars with pride?

What about the humanitarian argument for invading Iraq?

if this were true then world governments such as Australia and the US would have committed to a global mechanism of humanitarian intervention rather than resisting attempts at any global governance mechanisms such as international law? nationalism and national self-interest justify state governments picking and choosing where and when they participate in 'humanitarian intervention', and as such they generally only act when they have ulterior motives for doing so.

Basically yes. The vast majority of wars are fought for very good reasons. And while I do not like losses of soldiers they are expected and to an extent acceptable.

nothing i could say would do justice to the ignorance of that statement

 

[loquasagacious]

how can you say war is declining? please provide evidence.
i am in favour of capitalism over communism - vastly oversimplified - but neoliberalism in particular is making the world worse, not better.

Lets take Europe as an example, it is the most economically advanced geographically grouped countries and there has been no inter-european war since WWII, disregarding the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

i suggest you read a book called history before claiming capitalism has no bearing on conflicts

Distinguish between mercantilism and neo-liberalism.

the fact that these governments are not voted out merely reinforces my argument that they have manipulated the population effectively through things such as nationalism.

It also reinforces mine that the the government reflects the people.

so in order to guarantee our security, we had to send large numbers of people to be killed? doesn't make much sense?

Perhaps because you've never opened the book called 'International Relations'. Australia is vulnerable (or percieves itself to be) and so we seek a 'great and powerful friend' who can guarantee our security. This doesnt come free in return we support them eg UK in WWI, WWII, US in korea, vietnam, iraq, etc.

why exactly was a war on the other side of the world in our interest? how was the war in anyone's interest at all for that matter?

See above support of UK. It seems in the interest of the French to repel an invasion, in the interest of the British to prevent Germany becoming more powerful and in the interest of Germany to become more powerful. Also it is necessary to honour ones treaties.

what would be better - to be ruled by a foreign government, or to die in a war?

Have you heard the quote: "It is prefarable to die on your feet than live on your knees"?

I'm sure you would have fitted right in in vichy france though, really gotten behind your new country, helped send jews off to the east inform on allied agents and the like.

apparently these european powers weren't so worried about sovereignty and nationalism when they went about 'colonising' various continents and indigenous peoples all over the world.

Most indigenous people possesed neither soveriegnty or nationalism - exceptions: China, Egypt and India.

Also nationalism is an ideology of conflict, it centres on competiting with equals and subjugating inferiors. To a large extent it drove colonialism/imperialism. Neo-liberalism challenges nationalism and hence reduces the impetus to colonise etc.

this has to be a joke? how can the national interest be rational, for example, when there are so many competing interests within nations? how can it be rational to consider it in the interests of a nation to invade another, when murder is considered the worst crime, domestically.

So you think the national interest is irrational? Explain.

It is rational to invade another country when the benefits to be obtained outweigh the losses eg a 40% increase in available resources versus a 10,000 casualty rate (out of a population of 20m).

Oh and the highest crime domestically is treason not murder.

you can hardly say it was rationally in the national interest of the USA to invade iraq?

Can and do. They believed (but were not necasserily correct) that they could gain something eg strategic position, access to resources, remove a threat etc and at an acceptable cost. Perhaps the gain was overestimated and the cost underestimated.

However the benefit of withdrawing at this point is outweighed by the cost of doing so.

ignoring the fact that neoliberalism has never been applied successfully to development, and is an absurdly flawed ideology, i would argue that even its original proponent - the USA - ignores most of its doctrines in favour of economic nationalism. you're lucky that this is true as well because if the USA did actually follow neoliberal policies, then you could hardly look at recent history and find any erosion of nationalism and warmongering.

Well perhaps if we did adhere to neo-liberalism things would be better?

if anything the left allows for the possibility that the population are not inherently violent racists, but that they have been manipulated and their values constructed by certain powerful groups - ie the government - which benefits from these values. you are denying that this is true and therefore the only conclusion open to you is that the population is violent and racist.

Your point?

is this a response to something i said?? i remember advocating peace, and you were the one who wanted to look back on past wars with pride?

I remember you advocating communism a docterine of global warfare and revolution.

nothing i could say would do justice to the ignorance of that statement

Now who's ignorant?

My family history is one of warfare, my family has served in pretty much every war involving Australia, the US or UK in the last 200 years and beyond. Fought in and in many cases died. Many of my friends, and friends family are currently serving in our armed forces.

I have a lasting personal connection to war, I am not speaking in ignorance. If anyone is ignorant it is yourself - you are ignorant of how the world works, it is time you woke up and smelled the roses rather than spouted idealistic pacifist BS.

 

[Comrade nathan]

I wasn't going to say much untill this.

What about the humanitarian argument for invading Iraq?

This really annoys me. It is very twisted and sick for the pro war group to talk about the war as a humanitarian intervention.

Saddam Hussein was a pawn of the US and Western Europe nations, he was a Western creation. The imperialists created this man. They didn't care about atrocities this man commited as long as he played his part. That was to supply oil to the western nations and be an ally against the USSR and Iran.

How can it be then, that the US removed Saddam for humamitarian reasons? It is impossible, and it is sick and twisted that pro war groups portray it as being so. The USA and other imperialist countries remove dictators they once supported for political and economic reason.

If you want to be a humanitarian then you have to be an anti imperialist.

 

[spell check]

Lets take Europe as an example, it is the most economically advanced geographically grouped countries and there has been no inter-european war since WWII, disregarding the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

what is this proof of? it merely supports my argument that nationalism is constructed and therefore malleable. if you were correct in saying that everyone in france hates everyone in germany and that is why wars happened and that therefore war is legitimate, then this would still be the case.

Distinguish between mercantilism and neo-liberalism.

neoliberalism in reality is merely an extension of imperialism from the US and Europe. please give evidence that it has achieved anything?

It also reinforces mine that the the government reflects the people.

who is living in a fantasy land now? you think there is no government manipulation of the people at all, wasn't it howard who said that the government creates popular opinion, it doesn't follow it.

Perhaps because you've never opened the book called 'International Relations'. Australia is vulnerable (or percieves itself to be) and so we seek a 'great and powerful friend' who can guarantee our security. This doesnt come free in return we support them eg UK in WWI, WWII, US in korea, vietnam, iraq, etc.

this is probably the stupidest comment of all. please give any example of how australia has been helped by a great and powerful friend? especially vulnerable to the extent that the cost-benefit of sending people and resources to fight and die in those various conflicts would make them worthwhile.

See above support of UK. It seems in the interest of the French to repel an invasion, in the interest of the British to prevent Germany becoming more powerful and in the interest of Germany to become more powerful. Also it is necessary to honour ones treaties.

it might be in the interest of competing ruling classes, but it is hardly in the interest of the population in general.

Have you heard the quote: "It is prefarable to die on your feet than live on your knees"?

I'm sure you would have fitted right in in vichy france though, really gotten behind your new country, helped send jews off to the east inform on allied agents and the like.

that quote is hardly persuasive. the fact that people were repeatedly sent to die in wars for nationalism during the 20th century suggests that they were living on their knees in service of perverse warmongering governments already.

Most indigenous people possesed neither soveriegnty or nationalism - exceptions: China, Egypt and India.

you think aboriginal people had no system of law or sense of identity??

Also nationalism is an ideology of conflict, it centres on competiting with equals and subjugating inferiors. To a large extent it drove colonialism/imperialism. Neo-liberalism challenges nationalism and hence reduces the impetus to colonise etc.

exactly why nationalism is so perverse and should be eradicated.

neoliberalism doesn't exist as an objective theory. please explain how neoliberalism challenges nationalism? if anything neoliberalism increases the impetus to colonise because it reduces the sovereignty of weaker/poorer states in controlling foreign investment and corporations who are always based in stronger states.

once again neoliberalism is more of an idea than a practice anyway, look at the US and EU protection policies for example.

So you think the national interest is irrational? Explain.

it is irrational to think there is a unified, undisputed national interest. the 'national interest' defence has historically been used to legitimate policies such as the white australia policy, the stolen generation, supporting the murderous suharto regime in indonesia, violating international law regarding asylum seekers. it can hardly be considered rational, for example, for alexander downer to say that asylum seekers on the Tampa were a threat to our territorial integrity and national security.

national interest is just a useful phrase used by the government when it wants support for a particular policy, it does not literally mean that something is in the interest of everyone or even the majority of people in the country.

It is rational to invade another country when the benefits to be obtained outweigh the losses eg a 40% increase in available resources versus a 10,000 casualty rate (out of a population of 20m).

it is not rational because if you invade one country you are perpetuating an international system of instability in which you are equally open to invasion by a stronger state. if you refrained from invading a state - which i'm sure would be the popular stance - and instead created some system of global governance, you would be more secure.

Oh and the highest crime domestically is treason not murder.

further evidence of the control governments have over the population. treason laws have historically been used primarily by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent and opposition to the breach of human rights.

Can and do. They believed (but were not necasserily correct) that they could gain something eg strategic position, access to resources, remove a threat etc and at an acceptable cost. Perhaps the gain was overestimated and the cost underestimated.

if you are relying on 'what the government thought at the time' as the determinant of rationality, then there is no point making the distinction between rational and irrational, since all policies will be claimed to have been rational at the time.

Well perhaps if we did adhere to neo-liberalism things would be better?

neoliberalism is a fundamentally ineffective ideology when it comes to development, and it merely aggravates global tensions through its extreme increasing of inequality. even if it was effective, it would never be adopted by powerful states.

I remember you advocating communism a docterine of global warfare and revolution.

everything i said is recorded on this page so you'd look less stupid if you quoted me before saying this.

My family history is one of warfare, my family has served in pretty much every war involving Australia, the US or UK in the last 200 years and beyond. Fought in and in many cases died. Many of my friends, and friends family are currently serving in our armed forces.

i guess this explains why it is so hard for you to come to terms with the truth. it would be nice if everything happened for a good reason, but the world doesn't work that way.

I have a lasting personal connection to war, I am not speaking in ignorance. If anyone is ignorant it is yourself - you are ignorant of how the world works, it is time you woke up and smelled the roses rather than spouted idealistic pacifist BS.

i have been the one in this argument explaining how the world works and why it must be changed, it is you that fails to smell the roses. you are merely defending a perverse status quo.

 

[loquasagacious]

what is this proof of? it merely supports my argument that nationalism is constructed and therefore malleable. if you were correct in saying that everyone in france hates everyone in germany and that is why wars happened and that therefore war is legitimate, then this would still be the case.

Of course nationalism is malleable, infact like culture it is constantly changing and evolving. This does not make it constructed.

My point is that as neo-liberalism advances nationalism is withering and dieing.

neoliberalism in reality is merely an extension of imperialism from the US and Europe. please give evidence that it has achieved anything?

Mercantilism is an extension of imperialism. Neo-liberalism is a challenge to it. Neo-liberalism is about the freedom of capital and labour to travel regardless of borders - this is a clear challenge to the notion of borders upon which imperialism is founded.

The originator of neo-liberal thinking Adam Smith was among the harshest critics of The East India Company for being a monopolist and a mercantlist.

who is living in a fantasy land now? you think there is no government manipulation of the people at all, wasn't it howard who said that the government creates popular opinion, it doesn't follow it.

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

I think government is reflective of the people, you think the people are reflective of theor government.

You espouse basic vanguard commie thinking.

this is probably the stupidest comment of all. please give any example of how australia has been helped by a great and powerful friend? especially vulnerable to the extent that the cost-benefit of sending people and resources to fight and die in those various conflicts would make them worthwhile.

Heard of WWII? Besides which does not ever making a claim against your insurer invalidate having insurance in the first place?

it might be in the interest of competing ruling classes, but it is hardly in the interest of the population in general.

So the French should've surrendered - or more importantly you think the french people secretely deep down wanted too...

that quote is hardly persuasive. the fact that people were repeatedly sent to die in wars for nationalism during the 20th century suggests that they were living on their knees in service of perverse warmongering governments already.

It's not persuassive because you have no spine.

People went not were sent, you dont understand choice do you?

you think aboriginal people had no system of law or sense of identity??

Not a united sense of identity or system of law. No nation, no soveriegnty, no territory, no state. I believe Australia to have been unoccupied by any state and thus terra nullius prior to colonisation. Search to find a fuller explanation of my stance.

neoliberalism doesn't exist as an objective theory. please explain how neoliberalism challenges nationalism? if anything neoliberalism increases the impetus to colonise because it reduces the sovereignty of weaker/poorer states in controlling foreign investment and corporations who are always based in stronger states.

How is it subjective?

Investment improves their situation and their own companies develop see Asian Tigers.

once again neoliberalism is more of an idea than a practice anyway, look at the US and EU protection policies for example.

So now you're saying they should be more neo-liberal?

national interest is just a useful phrase used by the government when it wants support for a particular policy, it does not literally mean that something is in the interest of everyone or even the majority of people in the country.

People vote for governments.

Also Tampa was in the political interest of the govt because the people rejected them.

if you are relying on 'what the government thought at the time' as the determinant of rationality, then there is no point making the distinction between rational and irrational, since all policies will be claimed to have been rational at the time.

There is also an absolute measure of rationality in retrospect.

neoliberalism is a fundamentally ineffective ideology when it comes to development, and it merely aggravates global tensions through its extreme increasing of inequality. even if it was effective, it would never be adopted by powerful states.

neo-liberalism decreases inequality by maximising absolute not relative gains.

And perhaps it won't be adopted because under your theory the govt controls the people and those it doesnt control like yourself are too spinless to do anything.

it is not rational because if you invade one country you are perpetuating an international system of instability in which you are equally open to invasion by a stronger state. if you refrained from invading a state - which i'm sure would be the popular stance - and instead created some system of global governance, you would be more secure.

Offensive neo-realism: This is the talk of weak states.

Also the international system is fundamentally anarchic - states can not change this fact and must operate under this paradigm.

Oh and if an invasion eventuates then it is popular with invaders and unpopular with the invaded as a general rule of thumb.

everything i said is recorded on this page so you'd look less stupid if you quoted me before saying this.

i am a communist because i recognise that world war one was fought generally as an extension of the economic and political competition between the ruling classes of the european powers, which the australian elites felt it necessary to be a part of? this is historical fact, not theory.

I win.

i guess this explains why it is so hard for you to come to terms with the truth. it would be nice if everything happened for a good reason, but the world doesn't work that way.

Patronising tone only works if you know what you're talking about.

Allow me to extend family and friends family have served and are serving in both rank and file positions and brass. Furthermore I study; the science of rational choice, International Relations and European history/society. I speak from a basis of knowledge you speak from a skimming of the green left weekly.

Conclusion: Frankly I am tired of comprehensively beating down every point you make and it is becoming boring so this will be my last reply. As such here are some concluding notes:

You are a pacifist both personally and on a larger scale, I disagree with this stance in both instances.

You fail to understand what neo-liberalism is and confuse it with mercantlism, I suggest you study the topic or at least extend your reading on the topic from communist pamphlets.

You fail to understand the basic concept and operation of democracy and freedom of choice, if you were infact correct governments would never loose elections.

You fail to understand how international relations work, I suggest you study the topic.