I see your point, but it is still good to respect the spirit of the ANZAC forces- and of how valiant they've been. To forget is to disrespect them i think.

Especially as we come up to the 100th anniversary of the Mother of all English fuck ups- the massacre that was the Gallipoli campaign

As I said, no. The ANZAC spirit is a spirit that supports war and imperialism. Yes, the soldiers went through a lot, but I never asked them to invade the Ottoman Empire (of course), and I never asked them invade Afghanistan or Iraq. There is nothing honourable about either
a) wanting to go kill other people simply because your government says you should
of
b) getting sucked in by propaganda

It should be a day of mourning for all the lives lost during Australia's wars.

well it kinda IS

"the massacre that was the Gallipoli campaign"

A better use of time would be to burn Churchill in effigy, not celebrate his empire.

"well it kinda IS"

ANZAC is a day of mourning for the victims of ANZAC aggression?

There is plenty that is honourable about fighting for your friends and comrades in the defense of the idea of world freedom. That the campaign was badly run and there is some debate about the decision to go there in the first place is irrelevant to the courage, sacrifice and honour shown by the soldiers involved.

They deserve to be remembered.

I think one hold a view that those conflicts were wrong and that Australia should not have been involved (if that is your position) and still find it in your heart to honor those who have served.

@spyman @Octavious
I couldn't disagree more. The phase "I was just following orders" was heard at almost every Nazi war trial. Just because somebody tells you to do something doesn't relieve you of personal responsibility.

@ SunZi

You're seriously comparing ANZAC soldiers to Nazi war criminals? Are you trying to be offensive for some sort of pathetic trolling attempt or are you a complete moron?

@Oct - suspect it's both... He probably is trolling but feels that way somewhere deep down. I'd hate to hear his views on America's wars in the middle east. I may not agree with the motivation behind Iraq and whether we belong there or not, but the soldiers (in general, there are some bad soldiers too, like the Abu Ghraib assholes) are doing their job and doing it to the best and bravest of their ability.

And there is a *huge* difference between soldiers who order and/or follow through on the orders of the execution of captives in their care (millions of Jews, Russians, and Poles, and more) and those who are returning fire. And there is a big difference between a country going to war to protect another coutnry's citizens and free them from tyranny and coutnry who wanted to rule all of europe and eradicate anyone who was "different".

@Octavious
I was commenting specifically on your inane notion that there is honour in fighting regardless of the overlying context of the war.

@Draugnar
If you seriously believe that American soldiers are in the Middle East to "free them from tyranny" then there really isn't much point in discussing this further.

Don't translate staments. I said we don't belong in Iraq. Afghanistan is about taking out those who attacked *us*. But in both cases, the majority of the soldiers are fighting back, not massacering captives by putting them against the wall 3 or 4 or 5 deep and seeing how deep their bullets penetrate. You equate all war to Nazi war crimes. Please tell me how shooting a bunch of pacifist jews who you already locked up, or gassing them and then massburying their bodies is the same as fighting a war against armed combatants intent on killing you and your buddies...

I didn't equate all war to Nazi war crimes, I merely said that the excuse of "I was just following orders" is equally invalid.

"Afghanistan is about taking out those who attacked *us*."
Oh come on! Are you really that naive? The world trade centre attack wasn't a first strike that just fell out of the blue sky. Even if it was, does that justify the civilian casualties in Afghanistan which are starting to number in the tens of thousands? Furthermore, it wasn't "Afghanistan" who attacked you nor was Bin Laden even living in Afghanistan for the past ten years.

6000 dead at the world trade center. Yeah, it fucking well does justify 20,000 "civilian" casualites as you call them. As far as where he was found, so he was found across the border in Pakistan. Afghanistan was where the terrorist training camps were located. It isn't/wasn't a war on Bin Laden. It is/was a war on *terrorism*. So fuck yeah, nuke the place to the fucking slag heap it should be and be done with it.

But soldiers following orders to attack other soldiers is an honorable action. And fuck you for thinking otherwise.

"But soldiers following orders to attack other soldiers is an honorable action. And fuck you for thinking otherwise."

This depends entirely on what the circumstances of the battle are, why it is fought, who is being attacked, the state of the battle, etc. etc.

Among soldiers there is an ethic of following orders no matter what because war needs to be simple for most involved for wars to be won. However, as SunZi pointed out, this does not absolve those involved of responsibility for actions they perpetrated.

So the idea that soldiers following orders to attack orders is always honorable is remarkably simplistic, just as it is simplistic to assume that honoring dead soldiers is an endorsement of war. It is not, it is contemplation of the act of giving up one's life for a cause.

I'm not aware if Anzac is tied to a specific campaign or war. Even if it was tied to an unjustified war, there is still:

1) cause to have a day of remembrance for those dead in the war
2) a large number of soldiers and civilians on both sides whose actions were not in themselves wrong, and whose sacrifices could be called honorable and deserving of honor, such as a day of commemoration

In sum: keep days like Memorial Day and Anzac because there are plenty of reasons to observe them regardless of how you feel about war.

I personally believe war is sometimes justified - the truest heroes are those who voluntarily fight in just wars - these people deserve special honor. But all dead deserve remembrance, and every war has its heroes on both sides who are morally blameless, even such incomprehensibly senseless wars as WWI.

@Thucy - thank you. Your words are truer than my own. even the Nazis had soldiers fighting under Rommel who were just honorable soldiers fighting an honorable fight. They were killing Jews and Poles and Russians by the score and they weren't arresting their own citizens for "crimes agains the state" just because they wouldn't wear the Nazi symbol or bow down to Hitler. they were soldiers fighting against other soldiers on a battlefront.

I'm finding it hard to stomach this idea that anybody who wears a uniform is 'brave' and ought to be worshipped at the altar of militarism. The western armies butcher people in the hundreds of thousands and take photos of themselves pissing on graves and/or posing with dead bodies. There is nothing honorable about beating up on countries with no army and then occupying them indefinitely.

And Anzac day is a brilliant plot by the Australian & New Zealand states to justify their continued warmongering.

There was nothing honorable about the fucking Wehrmacht, they committed most of the Nazi atrocities on the eastern front. But whatever another day, another apologia for Nazi Germany.

"And there is a big difference between a country going to war to protect another coutnry's citizens and free them from tyranny and coutnry who wanted to rule all of europe and eradicate anyone who was "different"."

Just curious, how do you think those wonderful freedom loving countries got to have such massive empires?

The people who deserve remembrance are the victims of your beloved armies butchery. You know, the million+ Iraqis who got slaughtered because America and its ANZAC allies wanted its oil. Where are the 'Memorial Days' and 'ANZAC days' for them? Thought so.

Ptuin doesn't get it... I can see he posted something (or it was TC, but I doubt it) as they javascript hides it when the page is loading, but I can't read it cause he is muted and I have no desire to read to take the steps to read his anti-personal freedom, anti-capitalist commie diatribes.

Putin - not Ptuin... But I kind of like Ptuin. It sounds like I'm spittin some chaw juice out in the spittoon.

Why do you pretend to mute people and then comment about how you supposedly muted them endlessly? How much of an attention craved sad person are you?

Putin, relax.

Here's the part where I was going to compare the American and Soviet occupations of Afghanistan, but Putin would of course accuse me of "redbaiting".

75% of all civilian casualties in the (American) War in Afghanistan have been Taliban reprisals against people helping the Americans. Most of the rest have been completely accidental collateral damage because someone made the mistake of sharing a house with a cowering terrorist.

The point is, as General Westmoreland once said "The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars."

That statement is one of the truest statements ever made. Servicemen get paid to fight wars within the rules and laws of the nation they are serving. Whether or not that war was/is justified is not their concern.

We need to remember their sacrifice because they served their country. Whether or not that service was necessary is not a factor.