 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ good call.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
 |
MOTR
Joined: 24 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sq3 wrote: | 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.
_________________
Be Staunch, Be Proud, Be Collingwood |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | 5150 wrote: | The panic merchant sponsers are dropping like flys. Now Jamaica Blue (a coffee or something?) has bailed.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/sponsors-ditch-circle-amid-dudroot-fallout-20120305-1uceo.html
In a statement today, Jamaica Blue's owner, Foodco Group, said it had axed it sponsorship of The Circle "after much deliberation".
"As Foodco has previously stated, we do not – in any way – endorse nor condone the offensive remarks broadcast on The Circle last week regarding SAS Corporal Roberts-Smith," the company said.
"We're grateful to our many customers who have contacted us via Facebook and other channels to express their strong feelings concerning Jamaica Blue's association with The Circle.
"Foodco's decision to end our partnership with The Circle was ultimately based on a range of factors – including the strong feedback of our Jamaica Blue customers." |
Geewhiz. I hope people realise that, whatever their thoughts on Negus and Stynes' comments, this is an incredibly sinister outcome: essentially, corporate censorship. We're fast becoming a very thin-skinned society. |
Thin skinned maybe, but I don't see a problem with companies choosing who to advertise with based on how that program or organisation acts publicly. That's the choice of the advertiser.
There's plenty of precedent.
Look at how much trouble MTR had in getting advertisers. Companies didn't want their product associated withe them.
TAC withdrew their sponsorship of Collingwood after an incident involving Sharod Wellingham.
Nothing new here.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
The Prototype 
Paint my face with a good-for-nothin smile.
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | 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.
_________________
Ðavâgé
https://www.facebook.com/davehardingphotography
https://www.facebook.com/Davage |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MOTR wrote: | | sq3 wrote: | 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. 
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: | 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
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pi wrote: |
Define right or wrong, it depends on your perspective…. And what you regard as ‘national interest’ and those are subject to change every few years, via the ‘robust’ democracy we currently have. National interests evolve, mostly for very pragmatic reasons, but the actions of an individual soldier remain frozen in the context of which they happen.
Are you going to charge someone with a war crime because your political views two generations down the track differ?
Are you going to inspect the personnel file of every serviceman and reconstruct every action to ensure it meets with your current world view?
As you point out, modern Australian soldiers are subject to fairly rigorous standards, more stringent than those they are fighting in most cases. Soldiers are more accountable than politicians have ever been, for that alone they deserve acknowledgment.
The social demonization of Vietnam veterans in 1970’s was hardly a step in the right direction of a ‘progressive’ society. Let’s save the contempt for governments and the media because they are guaranteed to f$%$k things up. |
Under military law right and wrong is not subject to the viewpoint of the participant. That is a very slippery slope. Judge a soldier for past actions? Definitely - if he's been knowingly involved in indictable war crimes then certainly he should be held to account for it. The actions of ordinary soldiers in a typical action is a different scenario completely. What happens there is between a soldier and his maker and no-one else.
I certainly wouldn't be examining every past soldier's record for breaches of international military law. That is a silly suggestion and one I never made. I was pointing out that soldier's actions include sometimes criminal acts and the idea that a soldier's actions on service should be accepted uncritically is misguided and not consistent with international military law which has been in place for a little over 100 years. we should probably also acknowledge in its context that some Australian soldiers actions, while perhaps understandable in context were wrong then and are wrong now. I refer to behaviour such as the Suez canal child beggars and Diggers throwing them burning hot pennies for example. We can understand the mindsets behind it but treat it as acceptable, well no.
We need to acknowledge things like that so we get a more realistic view of our soldiers in the past and their way of life etc. Australian soldiers of the past were not noble warriors upholding all that is good about Australia, they were ordinary blokes of their time with their good and bad points. Its about time that view re-asserted itself and digger hagiography and panegyrics were put to rest once and for all. That doesn't mean their service isn't honoured or fully acknowledged. Its just done without mythologising and deifying them.
I agree with you that Vietnam vets were poorly treated. The responses of the public was something other veterans didn't receive. Then again pretty much all our vet have been ignored after de-mobbing. Post World War One the vets were an uncomfortable fact that were mostly ignored by the public and politicians. Many WW2 vets had a similar experience for many years.
Our soldiers seem to do a pretty good job upholding the conventions of war. That must not always be easy and you are right that should be acknowledged for what it is. However breaches cannot be ignored and should be subject to the same scrutiny and possibly prosecution as any other war crime.
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper 
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | 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.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
rocketronnie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Reservoir
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doc63 wrote: | | David wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: | 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.
_________________
"Only the weak believe that what they do in battle is who they are as men" - Thomas Marshall - "Ironclad". |
|
|
|
|
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Gone from Cpl Roberts-Smith to WW2...this thread has it all.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pied Piper wrote: | | David wrote: | | 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. |
See RR's post, PP — I think your comments are uncalled for.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
sq3
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Location: Gold Coast/Tampa
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MOTR wrote: | | sq3 wrote: | 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.
_________________
Coaches give you direction but skills win you matches. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| How do people usually respond to that? To How long have you been married? |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doc63 wrote: | | David wrote: | | 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
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sq3 wrote: | | MOTR wrote: | | sq3 wrote: | 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
