''so perhaps at the very least, we could demand'' who is 'we'?...

First 107 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
pintohoo

81,240 Posts.

75

26/04/24

16:23

Post #: 73528212
Share

Originally posted by bellcurve ↑

@pibroch
@moorookamick
@pintohoo

let's put aside the inherent contradiction in wanting to pay our respects to those who served without any criticism of the govt of the day's basis for its decision making.

i get it. Govt and many participants want the sole focus of Anzac day to be on those who served, without a political element.

If i was in govt, so would i. Having to explain your decisions particularly when they're wrong is awfully hard to do.

so perhaps at the very least, we could demand the govt of the day clearly articulate who its sending Australian forces overseas to kill. To ask the govt to define the enemy.

if this was law perhaps Australia could have avoided involvement in American genocides in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

if the govt wants to put Australia's finest in harms way on another pathetic overseas misadventure where the risk is they'll be killed, govt must define the enemy.

if they don't or can't, where is the respect.

Expand

''so perhaps at the very least, we could demand''

who is 'we'?

if it's 'the opposition' - well, there's a few issues with that in things like emergencies - war, health crisis, natural emergencies

it's a different time - and often - it's best for all to allow government to just get on and do what it's to do to handle the emergency and not have to play political football

it's an issue that there's no perfect answer for -- there are potential downsides to getting out of the way of government and there are potential downsides or getting in their way and saying - 'hey, wait a minute, we disagree with that'

but, - 'we' could mean the press, 'we' could mean people on the street protesting --

I guess we need to hear your definition of 'we' - if you have a clear definition. if you don't - that's understandable as well
Upvote

Reply