"The Circle" can VC recipient.

[David]

^ good call.

[MOTR]

David - We can only hope that one day we never have to rely on pacifists or people like you to defend any person or country.

As I say to my wife whenever we see a peace rally - the muslim armies would slaughter all these people without a single thought - but these 'do gooders' seem to live live in Wonderland where everyone is good and nothing bad really happens.

One day you may see it differently.

You are completely misrepresenting David's position. Those who question military action are not necessarily absolute pacifists. Those who refuse to give their governments a blank cheque do much to protect our own servicemen and women and the innocent victims of unjust military action. They serve an important role in protecting the integrity of our country, the democratic rights of our citizenry and often the lives of our soldiers.

On behalf of those of us who closely read David's post, I'd like to point out that he is far from naive and he is well aware bad things happen. If your point is that our country would be much better if pacifists did not contribute to the national discourse, your position is not far from the Muslim dictators you detest.

[stui magpie]

[The Prototype]

The Circle
You may have noticed the way you interact with our page has changed. We take our viewers enjoyment of the page seriously, and we will not tolerate fans being attacked on our page by other users. You are free to comment on our posts, however any that go against our Community Guidelines (http://on.fb.me/CommGuideforChTen) will be removed, and serial offenders will be blocked.

Came across this after reading Eleven's twitter a few moments ago, I think there are some taking things WAY too far.

Fair enough for Sponsors to pull out, they have their own little code and such, I didn't think the comments were as bad as some I've seen, but they were silly, but apologies were made, and accepted.

Maybe some who are making the abusive comments should probably see they are doing way worse than those who made the comments on TV.

Fair enough to be outraged, and angry, but not abusive.

[rocketronnie]

David - We can only hope that one day we never have to rely on pacifists or people like you to defend any person or country.

As I say to my wife whenever we see a peace rally - the muslim armies would slaughter all these people without a single thought - but these 'do gooders' seem to live live in Wonderland where everyone is good and nothing bad really happens.

One day you may see it differently.

You are completely misrepresenting David's position. Those who question military action are not necessarily absolute pacifists. Those who refuse to give their governments a blank cheque do much to protect our own servicemen and women and the innocent victims of unjust military action. They serve an important role in protecting the integrity of our country, the democratic rights of our citizenry and often the lives of our soldiers.

On behalf of those of us who closely read David's post, I'd like to point out that he is far from naive and he is well aware bad things happen. If your point is that our country would be much better if pacifists did not contribute to the national discourse, your position is not far from the Muslim dictators you detest.

Got it in one.

[Doc63]

David Wrote
"none of these were wars fought in Australia's national interest"


So David, does that mean that counties can do what they want to countries that would be our traditional allies and we won't get involved as long as we are not threatened directly?

Once they have conquered these countries what do you think they would do next?

I would rather see good men (and non aggressive democratic countries) stand together and protect their mutual interests from an aggressor than see them stand alone and fall. This applies to bullies as much as rouge states.

Using your theory what would have happened to Australia if Japan had attacked us first and not the USA. Should they have sat on the sideline and observed us being annihilated?

I make an exception for our military activity in South-East Asia in WW2. Whether Japan were a direct threat or not, they were certainly perceived to be. Our activity in North Africa and the Middle East, however, had little to do with Australia's interests; it was at the behest of the Empire. Now, we may rightly look back on those battles with pride considering the malevolence of Hitler and Mussolini, but I think it's important to save the 'dying for our country' rhetoric for where it's warranted. While that doesn't make the deaths of Australian soldiers any less tragic or less brave, it does mean that we should consider typical war rhetoric more skeptically.

Perceived to be? Maybe the people living in Darwin at the time just imagined that more bombs were dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbour. Maybe the the miniature subs in Sydney Harbour were there as tourists, taking some happy snaps of the bridge.

[rocketronnie]

[Pied Piper]

I make an exception for our military activity in South-East Asia in WW2. Whether Japan were a direct threat or not, they were certainly perceived to be.

Jeez David, get your head out of your arse for God's sake - you're very hard to defend when you write rubbish like that.

Overall I'm somewhere between OEP's and rocketronnie's positions on this. The program's ridicule of this bloke was completely unnecessary. The soldier concerned is entitled to due respect. By the same token, reflexive genuflection by those who'd much sooner wrap themselves in a flag than actually fight for it is sick-making.

[rocketronnie]

David Wrote
"none of these were wars fought in Australia's national interest"


So David, does that mean that counties can do what they want to countries that would be our traditional allies and we won't get involved as long as we are not threatened directly?

Once they have conquered these countries what do you think they would do next?

I would rather see good men (and non aggressive democratic countries) stand together and protect their mutual interests from an aggressor than see them stand alone and fall. This applies to bullies as much as rouge states.

Using your theory what would have happened to Australia if Japan had attacked us first and not the USA. Should they have sat on the sideline and observed us being annihilated?

I make an exception for our military activity in South-East Asia in WW2. Whether Japan were a direct threat or not, they were certainly perceived to be. Our activity in North Africa and the Middle East, however, had little to do with Australia's interests; it was at the behest of the Empire. Now, we may rightly look back on those battles with pride considering the malevolence of Hitler and Mussolini, but I think it's important to save the 'dying for our country' rhetoric for where it's warranted. While that doesn't make the deaths of Australian soldiers any less tragic or less brave, it does mean that we should consider typical war rhetoric more skeptically.

Perceived to be? Maybe the people living in Darwin at the time just imagined that more bombs were dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbour. Maybe the the miniature subs in Sydney Harbour were there as tourists, taking some happy snaps of the bridge.

Actually David is right. The recent examination of Japanese military papers by historians - including those of the AWM, reveal that the Japanese were aware that they didn't have the logistic capabilities to invade Australia. This was also the view of MacArthur at the time. Home grown propaganda aimed at the Australian people said otherwise for obvious reasons. The bombing of Darwin was a relatively minor action aimed at disrupting the port and communications at a critical time during the Japanese advance in the Pacific (as for the more bombs on Darwin etc etc that's a misleading statement that I blame the History Channel for. The total tonnage dropped on Darwin is actually over the period of a year and includes many minor raids that did little damage. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was over in two or three hours and was an intense aerial barrage creating great loss of life.). As for the midget submarines, that was little more than an attempt at a propaganda experiment that had minor military effects really.

The Battle of The Coral Sea is sometimes purported to be the battle that prevented the invasion of Australia. It was nothing of the sort. It was an action that turned back a force seeking to open a new front in New Guinea. Actions for the Japanese in New Guinea were aimed at neutralising the threat to their southern flank and bottling up Australia so it couldn't be used as a supply base for the USA to launch attacks on Japanese control of the Pacific. The Japanese failure in New Guinea was an important step towards retaking the Pacific as a whole by the Allies.

Of course both the bombing of Darwin and the submarines was traumatic for those involved and tragic for those who lost their lives. However in the great scheme of things in a World War 2 context, they were both little more than minor actions.

The threat of Japanese invasion was thought real by many Australians and that shouldn't be discounted. Of course the invasion propaganda tapped straight into White Australian xenophobic fears of the Asian hordes that lead to the White Australia policy also. Another reason for its effectiveness.

Which all just goes to show history like all human endeavour is open to change and revision.

[OEP]

Gone from Cpl Roberts-Smith to WW2...this thread has it all.

[David]

[sq3]

David - We can only hope that one day we never have to rely on pacifists or people like you to defend any person or country.

As I say to my wife whenever we see a peace rally - the muslim armies would slaughter all these people without a single thought - but these 'do gooders' seem to live live in Wonderland where everyone is good and nothing bad really happens.

One day you may see it differently.

You are completely misrepresenting David's position. Those who question military action are not necessarily absolute pacifists. Those who refuse to give their governments a blank cheque do much to protect our own servicemen and women and the innocent victims of unjust military action. They serve an important role in protecting the integrity of our country, the democratic rights of our citizenry and often the lives of our soldiers.

On behalf of those of us who closely read David's post, I'd like to point out that he is far from naive and he is well aware bad things happen. If your point is that our country would be much better if pacifists did not contribute to the national discourse, your position is not far from the Muslim dictators you detest.

I never said that he was naive - and my position is very far from the Muslim dictators.

Such suggestions are ridiculous and show that you don't really read the comments - try reading them next time.

[HAL]

How do people usually respond to that? To How long have you been married?

[Nick - Pie Man]

Re: Knight, I wasn't asserting an equivalence between the two, I was simply pointing out the high irony in the polarised reactions to two killers. I see that point has flown over most people's heads, though.

No, it hasn't. Its just that most people think its tripe. And it is.

That's not true. A couple of geriatric idiots think it's tripe. The sensible people agree with David

[Nick - Pie Man]

David - We can only hope that one day we never have to rely on pacifists or people like you to defend any person or country.

As I say to my wife whenever we see a peace rally - the muslim armies would slaughter all these people without a single thought - but these 'do gooders' seem to live live in Wonderland where everyone is good and nothing bad really happens.

One day you may see it differently.

You are completely misrepresenting David's position. Those who question military action are not necessarily absolute pacifists. Those who refuse to give their governments a blank cheque do much to protect our own servicemen and women and the innocent victims of unjust military action. They serve an important role in protecting the integrity of our country, the democratic rights of our citizenry and often the lives of our soldiers.

On behalf of those of us who closely read David's post, I'd like to point out that he is far from naive and he is well aware bad things happen. If your point is that our country would be much better if pacifists did not contribute to the national discourse, your position is not far from the Muslim dictators you detest.

I never said that he was naive - and my position is very far from the Muslim dictators.

Such suggestions are ridiculous and show that you don't really read the comments - try reading them next time.

Try communicating in a manner that doesn't cause readers of your posts to believe that you think the same way that these unseen 'Muslim dictators' do.