Cellar exit poll - Election 2006

[Aliantha]

Well I'm not going to dispute what's on Wikipedia that's for sure. There are many sources about the historical aspects of the conflict at Gallipoli. In fact, we have a national day of mourning/celebration called ANZAC day in order to remember those who served in Gallipoli. It is fairly well accepted that it was the British in charge and it was the British who used the Australian and New Zealand soldiers as what is commonly referred to as 'cannon fodder' that morning and till the end of the war. This conflict has gone a long way towards creating the antagonism which now exists to a lesser or greater extent between Australians and Brittons.

Also to add, there were a huge number of Australian soldiers involved in the Boer War in Africa which occured before the turn of the century. Not such a historical conflict for citizens of the US, but certainly a sad time for Australian families.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

There are many sources about the historical aspects of the conflict at Gallipoli. In fact, we have a national day of mourning/celebration called ANZAC day in order to remember those who served in Gallipoli. It is fairly well accepted that it was the British in charge and it was the British who used the Australian and New Zealand soldiers as what is commonly referred to as 'cannon fodder' that morning and till the end of the war.

Using enlisted men as cannon fodder was not unique to any nation. That is what generals did; that was their knowledge of war and their appreciation of lower classes. I believe there is an old movie based upon a real world WWI event where soldiers were court marshaled because they did not charge. Well, 1/4 of them immediately died to machine guns as they rose from the trench. Did not matter to top management who ordered them into that frontal assault anyway.

A famous Gen MacArthur quote addressed that saying "frontal assault is only for mediocre commanders". His was radical thinking for WWI and was only becoming acceptable fact in WWII. That misguided concept of a frontal assault created a Maginot Line.

Such total disrespect for the troops back then was not unique to WWI British Generals. Also was another problem that we still grasp with today. Gallipoli was about fighting a war for political reasons - with little regard to military realities and consequences. One should start by asking, if Gallipoli had succeeded, then what? What would it have really accomplished? The embarrassing conclusion is little. So why was it conducted? One must study the political agendas of Churchill and his peers of that time.

Meanwhile, I am totally confused by JayMcGee and Aliantha posts. If you are so concerned what America does, then why were you both so silent about new American laws that make it legal to kidnap, hide, and torture you? You want a right to vote in America? Hell. I saw neither respond appropriately when S3930 was made law - so that you can be denied rights under the Geneva Conventions and so that you can be denied access to the International Red Cross. Americans passed these laws, in part, because you endorsed extraordinary rendition, torture, and secret prisons by being so silent.

[Shawnee123]

Though I wish we could have ousted Cheeseburger Montgomery as AG, I'm proud of Ohio today. Governor and Senator...wow. This red state is turning blue!

The peeps have spoken.

[Shawnee123]

[quote=Shawnee123]Though I wish we could have ousted Cheeseburger Montgomery as AG, I'm proud of Ohio today. Governor and Senator...wow. This red state is turning blue!
[quote]

Just realized that Montgomery got beat after all. It was iffy this a.m. Except for trying to legislate "morals" through an all out smoking ban, I am now really pleased with the results.