Anzacs

[chris_gee]

I don't think for a minute that the sacrifice of the men and boys and women is belittled. Indeed it is lamented.
It is not that both sides may have had more adept command.
Both were loyal and patriotic.
One still sees the few old blokes marching, marked forever, and feels their grief for their mates and the question of in whose interests were they sacrificed.

[tdw]

Originally Posted by ianhlnd

TDW:

The same thing is here in california, groups that think the western states should be returned to Mexico. Great, screw up one country then get the chance to screw up another. The problem is some of our elected politicians agree with them and have promoted their agenda.

I can't figure how someone can lay claim to nothing they had anything to do with and happended 500 years ago?

What does
ANZAC mean? I get the Australia, New Zealand but the rest?

Ian,
My take on this is that it's not so much to do with whether the Aboriginal people of Australia have a claim on the land anymore but rather that it is kicking mud in their faces to celebrate the day the white fella took the country from their ancestors. Australia Day should be a day when Australians of all kinds join together to celebrate what has been achieved in the last few hundred years.
I do believe that a disposessed people deserve honourable treatment by those who did the disposessing. Remember too, that many of the Oz Aboriginals lost their land within the last 100 years. We are not necessarily talking about a Palestine situation here where the events occured over 2000 years ago.

[tdw]

SWay I take your point.

Your's too Chris.

While I have vehemently disagreed with pretty much every war that has been fought in my lifetime (yes, sometimes in hindsight) that is irrelevent when it comes to honouring the men and women who laid down their lives in defence of something they thought worthwhile even if they were , in my opinion, misguided. Provided only that they behaved like real soldiers, else we would be honouring the former members of the SS.

Interesting SWay that you talk of keeping military spending high in order to prevent Gallipoli style fiascos from occurring. At the time of Gallipoli the British Empire were at the cutting edge of military technology yet it was still a **** up, largely because of fool politicians who decided that they were military strategists. Churchill may well have been a great leader, THE man to lead Britain through those terrible years 39-45, a man capable of rousing his people from a nightmarish situation and encouraging them to carry on even when all hope seemed lost, BUT as a military strategist he was crap and to those who loyally stood by his nation's side in Britain's darkest hours he showed little loyalty.