It’s a pity Anzac Day hasn’t seen the widespread practising of unwritten conventions. Like a free drink for veterans and servicemen in appreciation of their sacrifices.
Last night a couple of celebrating Navy girls in uniform - is there a finer sight? - insisted I should be a barman when granted a free ride to Kings Cross. For me it was nothing, five bucks, yet they hadn’t received a free drink all day.
How about the unwritten Anzac Day rule of never taking money off veterans, covered by Sam de Brito in a recent post on two-up,
Never : Take money from a 70-year-old gent wearing medals. Don't be patronising, just forget to pick up your winnings from him, or slip the dosh in his jacket pocket and disappear into the crowd.
In Balmain last night an old fella wearing medals and partially blind was mightily relieved when I found him and his wife on a street of revellers seeking taxis. They were dead on their feet after attending the Dawn Service, thence followed by the March.
A WW11 sailor, his cruiser was sunk in the Mediterranean by a German torpedo in the dead of night, claiming 150 of his shipmates. After which he served on another two ships in the Pacific theatre. Listening to this account told in a matter-of-fact manner, it was hard to comprehend his experience, though an honour to hear all the same.
The bloke and his missus were so effusive in thanks for a free ride you’d think they’d won the lottery. Obviously the first ‘sling’ he’d received all day. "It’s like Christmas," he said after finally opening the door. As it should be on Anzac Day, he sure earned it.
Don't talk to me about soldiers and war, glory and honour, when our troops are helping to kill innocent people around the world.
Over 650,000 dead in Iraq!!! For what ??? Really, folks: for what??? John Howard cannot even explain it, let alone explain how we are ever going to get our soldiers' sorry arses of that distant country with our nation's all-important "honour" intact.
And please do not pretend that giving free alcolhol to pensioners is a good thing. My f-ing God, what a twisted nation of morally confused f-toids we have all become. How did it happen? The best of the soldiers who came back from WWI and WWII were calling for an end to all wars, an end to militarized politics, an end to the burgeoning global industrial-military machine. It was the guilty swine with consciences they could not face who called for more medals, more parades, and more free piss. And obviously, they were the loudest. They set up their RSL clubs and elected shameless wankers like Bruce Ruxton to represent them, daring anyone the challenge the memory of Our Glorious Dead Soldiers and oppose them.
Now that same global military-industrial machine controls the White House, and the White House controls Canberra, and we obedient, brain-washed citizens all, teach our children to beam with pride whenever anyone mentions the possibility of even more dead soldiers. Hurrah!
But of course, the real victims, always, in every war, ever since wars were invented, have been the innocent civilians, the ordinary people who wanted nothing to do with any of it in the first place. Do we need to have a war on our own shores before we begin to understand this?
I have had nothing but war, war, war rammed down my throat for the last ten years and I am sick to f-ing death of it, Adrian, I really f-ing am.
And I am not even drunk.
Posted by: gandhi | April 26, 2007 at 11:50 AM
ghandhi, that's the biggest steaming pile of pseudo pacifist biolerplate bullshit I have ever seen.
I know, don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: PQ | April 26, 2007 at 01:42 PM
PQ, I am happy to accept the "pacifist" tag, but you had better provide some evidence for the "pseudo" quantifier.
And before anyone else has a go at me, I suggest you read this post (and if necessary, the accompanying RTS thread), which explains a lot.
Alternatively, if you cannot be bothered reading a whole threadful or more of discussion, please at least explain to me WHAT THE F-ING HELL OUR SOLDIERS ARE DOING IN IRAQ TODAY?
Grrr.
Posted by: gandhi | April 26, 2007 at 02:12 PM
I can't see the relevance of bringing Iraq into a discussion about Anzac Day.
Anzac Day is about remembering the sacrifice made by Australian soldiers who went to war, the politics of it was not their responsibility.
These men and women went to war, a lot not returning, so ghandi can express his opinion in a free and independant country.
It's not about the free taxi rides or the free beer it's about the respect and gratitude that's owed to these fine men and women.
Posted by: turner mitteron | April 26, 2007 at 02:49 PM
Gandhi, you really have lost the plot. I agree whole heartedly with Turner Mitteron's above post. You should show respect to the brave soldiers who put themselves on the line for our country.
Posted by: Alastair | April 26, 2007 at 03:55 PM
Well done Adrian. You really showed the ANZAC spirit yesterday.
Posted by: SurferCam | April 26, 2007 at 05:15 PM
Adrian, while riding the train yesterday with some be-medalled vets, I gave some thought to how I, as an individual going about his business, could express suitable gratitude for their acts.
Your post is inspirational!
Posted by: Aurelius | April 26, 2007 at 06:28 PM
OK so nobody wants to explain why our courageous, honourable, brave and daring troops are in Iraq. Fair enough, why make a fool of yourself if you don't have to?
But obviously none of the above commenters actually read the link I posted, or they would realise that Iraq actually has a whole lot to do with Anzac Day. War is war is war.
Posted by: gandhi | April 26, 2007 at 08:30 PM
Anyone who would take on the name-sake of a racist like Gandhi would have to be an idiot.
Posted by: Brett | April 26, 2007 at 08:44 PM
Ad hominem, brett, and not even ad the right hominem.
Why is it that the pro-war crowd tend to be under-educated and lacking in basic debating skills, hmmn?
Posted by: gandhi | April 26, 2007 at 09:54 PM
And coincidentally, why is it that we as a society seem to prefer voting for governments who spend billions of our taxpayer dollars on "defence" (against what? whom?) rather than health and education?
Posted by: gandhi | April 26, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Gandhi you are a complete idiot! War is not a simple matter. I am generally anti-war but I do not have a blanket view of the matter. Every war is different and some actions of war can be reasonably justified. The ANZACS put themselves on the line for their country and they should be honoured. They didn't make any decisions about the war. The country called for their service and they answered the call. All those soldiers efforts should be honoured and respected.
For what it's worth I've always been strongly opposed to the Iraq War - however this thread is not about that (in case you hadn't noticed). However, I've the utmost respect for the members of the military in Iraq who are serving our country.
Posted by: Alastair | April 26, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Ghandi views may be expressed a little bluntly and always going to be controversial on ANZAC day but I can see where he is coming from.
When I was young ANZAC day was a solemn, quiet day of reflection with an overriding message of war should be avoided at all costs. These days it has been politicised and has almost become a celebration of how great Australian’s can be on the battlefield.
It is being used to justify, or at least deflect attention from what an absolute tragedy the Iraq war is. Ghandi has a right to be extremely pissed off. Our esteemed leaders committed our country to an illogical and unjust war and justified their decisions through lies. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed and many, many more are left to mourn them and try and forget the atrocities they have witnessed (including our diggers).
Our soldiers should be honoured on ANZAC day. They should be respected for their brave service and the ordeals they endured. They should not, however, be turned into idealised hero’s that exemplify what it means to be Australian. We are much more than that.
The most important part of ANZAC day seems to be increasingly forgotten. That is remembering those that fell in war, our diggers, the innocent civilians and the opposing soldiers who were also serving their countries.
Lest we forget.
Posted by: sunburnt | April 27, 2007 at 12:39 AM
I think Gandhi objects, rightly so I might add, to the policy that directs these soldiers. Unfortunately, he ends up taking out his frustrations on the soldiers themselves. Perhaps the soldiers shouldn't "just obey orders," but really, what here is the alternative? It's not like too many of them are being asked to do something that conflicts with a personal moral imperative. Do they just not go to Iraq because they think it's a bad policy? That doesn't seem to be a very helpful alternative; if soldiers didn't follow orders they deemed to be stupid, we wouldn't have much of an army in any circumstance, now would we?
And it's not unlike wars haven't occasionally lead to a more stable, prosperous society. After all, in 60 years, the western world has gone from a war every 25 years to a world in which it's unimaginable that Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia, and many other countries would ever fight each other in our lifetimes. Pretty damn amazing, no? For this I am thankful, and I would like to recognize the soldiers who constantly charged toward the guys trying to kill them for their role in implementing the enlightened policy that got us to where we are today.
It's just unfortunate that the policy seems to have become less enlightened recently.
Posted by: Jon | April 27, 2007 at 01:24 AM
Good on you. I sometimes give one on the house too.The Irish who fought in the 2 wars have had a hard time here. Some treating them as traitors for fighting for the Crown,never looking that they would be speaking German but for their sacrafice.
God you get some amount of hits on your blog.
Posted by: dublin taxi | April 27, 2007 at 05:35 AM
sunburnt and jon, thanks for understanding where I am coming from.
Perhaps the soldiers shouldn't "just obey orders," but really, what here is the alternative? It's not like too many of them are being asked to do something that conflicts with a personal moral imperative. Do they just not go to Iraq because they think it's a bad policy?
The alternative is to refuse to go to Iraq, to go AWOL if necessary. Many US soldiers have done this, most notably Eric Watada. The Iraq invasion was a clear breach of international law and even by their own standards our soldiers have a DUTY to refuse to serve there. We have a War Criminal government and our military is aiding and abetting it. Personally, I think that is terrifying.
And anyone who insists that Aussie soldiers in Iraq are doing no wrong might like to take a close look at how much money (millions of $$$) the Australian government has paid out in compensation to Iraqi families who have lost innocent lives as a result of Australian military action. We even opened fire on an Iraqi minister's convoy!!!
Posted by: gandhi | April 27, 2007 at 07:51 AM
gandi go take another pill you goose.
Posted by: CITY/COUNTRY CABBIE | April 27, 2007 at 08:07 AM
I had a look at gandis blog and it full of hate and bile.
I think we've been taken for a ride, all he wants is to publicise his hate bolg because he only has one comment and that's NOT from an admirer.
Posted by: turner mitteron | April 27, 2007 at 02:06 PM
ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.
I will happily remove my URL if that is a problem. Anyone want to provide some discussion based on FACT rather than just spewing bile, please do so.
Maybe it wasn't obvious to our soliders back in March 2003 that the invasion was illegal, but there is no excuse for ignorance any more. Our continued presence in that country is a disgrace, and does nothing for either Australia or the poor people of Iraq.
Take a look at Riverbend's latest post and then tell me how glorious our damned soldiers are.
Posted by: gandhi | April 27, 2007 at 05:55 PM
PS: Seriously turner m., if I just wanted to attract hits to my blog (no disrespect to Adrian) there are better, more energy-efficient ways of doing it. Sheesh!!!
Posted by: gandhi | April 27, 2007 at 05:58 PM
gandi you arn't the guy who puts out a magazine for cabbies are you?
Posted by: tcs | April 27, 2007 at 08:07 PM
"The alternative is to refuse to go to Iraq, to go AWOL if necessary. Many US soldiers have done this, most notably Eric Watada. The Iraq invasion was a clear breach of international law and even by their own standards our soldiers have a DUTY to refuse to serve there. We have a War Criminal government and our military is aiding and abetting it. Personally, I think that is terrifying."
Honestly, I think it'd be more terrifying if the military disavowed its civilian commanders.
Posted by: Jon | April 27, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Don't talk to me about soldiers and war, glory and honour, when our troops are helping to kill innocent people around the world.
Ghandi, this is a totally inappropriate sentiment when responding to an innocuous Anzac Day post. I simply reported on some encounters with individuals, reflecting Anzac Day's traditional emphasis on veterans and an 'appreciation of their sacrifices'. This ought not be denied on their one day of the year. The politics of war is for the other 364 days.
In the blogsphere provocative, off-topic commenting is called 'hijacking a thread', something most bloggers consider poor etiquette. I trust you'll avoid this in future. Thanks, Adrian.
Posted by: adrian | April 28, 2007 at 07:22 AM
"even by their own standards our soldiers have a DUTY to refuse to serve there."
That's an outrageous statement. Who are you to be telling everyone what they ought to be doing? And who are you to be telling everyone that they should be refusing to serve their country? No war is a simple matter. You're simplistic view shows your great ignorance of the matter.
Posted by: Alastair | April 28, 2007 at 01:06 PM
Adrian,
The politics of war is for the other 364 days.
According to you. Sorry, nobody told me. Ay, ay, ay!
What to say...?
I lived in Spain for a while. There, they have a national day of rememberance too. On that day, every year, Franco supporters come out into the streets, waving Spanish flags and chanting the dictator's name. Not just chanting his name in a Rastafarian kind of way, either: screeching it, shouting it. The demonstrations are very provocative, almost to the point of violence. When I first heard them coming down my street in an ordinary Madrid suburb, I hesitated to open my windows. It sounded like an angry mob on the rampage.
Is that where Australia is headed?
I appreciate your sentiment, Adrian, and I realise that both your comments and your actions were extremely well-intentioned. But surely I have a right to counter that with my own opinions, whatever day of the year it might be?
I am not trying to hijack this thread, I am just responding honestly, with some passionately-held views. Isn't that what blogging is supposed to be about? If my presence here is not welcome, please let me know.
You might also want to consider that there are many returned service men and women who want nothing to do with Anzac Day, who find the glorification of war repugnant, and who see the increased politicisation of our armed forces as a dangerous, immoral trend which betrays everything they ever fought for.
Posted by: gandhi | April 28, 2007 at 05:25 PM
You have no bloody right gandhi you dickhead.
Posted by: Paul | April 28, 2007 at 06:00 PM
If my presence here is not welcome, please let me know.
What, so you can bitch and scream how your dissent has been crushed ? Nah, you're not one to be told, or one to listen. Your views are to be ignored and not taken seriously.
I imagine others will take the same position.
Posted by: adrian | April 28, 2007 at 06:44 PM
Top ten blogs, eh?
Hmmmn.
Goodbye, Adrian.
Posted by: gandhi | April 28, 2007 at 07:34 PM
Well said Adrian.
Posted by: Alastair | April 28, 2007 at 07:57 PM
Well, actually, just before I go...
I have raised a number of substantive issues here, Adrian. I have done so in good faith.
How about you at least have the decency to address these issues and set forth your own rebuttal before I go? Too hard?
Or have you never really considered the inherent contradictions in some of your much-publicised opinions?
I am always amazed at how much anger is directed towards anyone who strongly advances a pacifist viewpoint. Pacifists are supposed to be wimps, right?
Anyone who feels angry about anything I have said above should carefully consider where that anger is coming from.
Posted by: gandhi | April 28, 2007 at 08:49 PM
Gandhi, this thread was not about the issues you raised so your posts were inappropriate and I see no reason why Adrian should address them.
If you're a pacifist why is your blog so provocatively titled - "Howard Death Watch"?
Posted by: Alastair | April 28, 2007 at 09:13 PM
Alastair,
My blog was originally titled "Howard Out", but I changed it to reflect what I see as Howard's current political status. It is a POLITICAL death watch, not a medical one. Is that OK, or is satire dead too?
This post was about Anzac Day, which commemorates a very tragic day in our nation's history. Many fine young men were mown down by bullets while trying to race up a hill at the back of a beach in Turkey. Their intention, if they reached the top of that hill, was to kill other men. The day means different things to different people.
If anyone thinks my response was inappropriate, they do not appreciate where I am coming from. I have been posting anti-war, anti-Howard and anti-Bush blog content for the last four years. I am extraordinarily tired of war. I am tired of the politicized glorification of war. And I certainly did not expect this rather quaint "Sydney cabbie" blog, of all places, to delve into that arena.
I most certainly did not intend to "hijack" this thread, I just posted my thoughts at the time.
Over 650,000 Iraqis are dead, Adrian. Our soldiers are helping to kill them. Given the magnitude of the destruction our troops are helping to wreak in Iraq, versus your own hurt feelings about a thread being "hijacked", I really do not see that I have anything to apologize for.
This is the world we live in. Anzac Day 2007 falls at a time when our troops are engaged in what (to me at least) are disgraceful activities. I have a right to express that. And I dare say that many of those dead Anzac soldiers, if they could talk, would support me.
Posted by: gandhi | April 28, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Food for thought, Adrian, as you prepare an appropriate response.
An ordinary soldier's view of the war in Iraq today:
And an ordinary journalist's view:Posted by: gandhi | April 28, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Gandhi what people are saying is leave those issues for the other days of the year. Anzac day is about saying thankyou to the former and current service people and its a reminder of the horrors of war and why we should avoid it at all costs. Adrian's post was about his day as a driver and the folk he met and you spew all you stuff and p... us all off. Goodbye, hope its for good.
Posted by: Paul | April 29, 2007 at 02:09 PM
OK, suddenly I see the light.
I just checked the blogroll here. Explains a lot.
Tim Blair, PJs Media, etc, etc. Fits the pattern. What a surprise.
But Iraq The Neoconservative Model, Adrian? Really? Do you know who these guys are?
Posted by: gandhi | April 29, 2007 at 09:38 PM
Clear off, mungbean.
Some paciifist you are, you would love to punch my lights out for being a bloodsoaked warmonger, wouldn't you?
Sheesh.
Posted by: PQ | April 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I haven't read all the other comments posted on this blog, sometimes the comments from readers distracts from your original post.
Anyway, my dad's a veteran (Vietnam) - every year I go home and we go to dawn service, and sometimes the march.
This year, after dawn service, my dad went down to the local RSL - where they had free beer. So yes, your veterans do get a free beer on Anzac day, it just happens to be at 7 in the morning.
Posted by: mel | April 29, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Good to hear Mel, very reassuring. Here's cheers to your Dad.
Posted by: adrian | April 30, 2007 at 06:08 AM
Maybe we should give the final word here - seeing as how it is Anzac Day - to an old soldier?
Here are the 1933 thoughts of Smedley Darlington Butler, Major General, United States Marine Corps. Butler was born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881, educated Haverford School, married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905. He was awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917. He received the distinguished service medal, 1919, then retired Oct. 1, 1931. He died at the Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940.
Here are his thoughts on war:
Posted by: gandhi | May 01, 2007 at 05:07 PM