Australians Losing Faith In the United States.

That is a red herring. Clearly the rules are not the same.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

0 Replies

finn said

Quote:

If Howard is thrown out of office, it will hardly be because of his ties with the Bush Administration. Local politics trump national, and national trump global.

Why pretend a rule of thumb is an axiomatic truth? The measurements of decline in Blair's popularity in Britain run parallel with the Iraq war and not with job stats in Shropshire.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

cjhsa

Alright, I'll bite. Considering those bearing arms are 'subject' to the exact same government rules as those bearing arms, where is the differentiation?

You had to go and bite, didn't you?

Didn't your mummy tell you never to bite?

0 Replies

Jesus f@cking christ cjhsa. This is the last time I'm going to say this, and then I'll leave you to your fantasy. Get this through your f@cking thick skull. Australians HAVE NOT given up their right to bear arms. In my work place alone, there are SCORES of people for whom hunting is a regular past time. I know lot's of people who own their own weapons. Having restrictions on the type of weapons people can own, is not giving up their rights. Ok, now that's done, you can go back to the pathetic little world of made up facts that you live in.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Wilso
I don't think we have to be worried about Indonesia at all. Every brave act I've seen from Indonesian soldiers is when they're attacking unarmed civilians. Faced with a trained enemy they have a tendency to piss themselves and run away. And even Indonesia would require a naval capability that I don't believe they have.

They don't exactly need a naval capacity as in a modern navy. Small fishing boats are able to chart the waters. About 4 years ago, my brothers brother-in-law, who is a reservist in one of Australia's northern scout forces (something like norforce, except I can't remember the name) had just finished an operation in the Gulf of Carpentaria where they had captured and destroyed 50 fishing boats - and that is just in the Gulf. These sort of things don't make the news, but it shows just what is able to be done with small boats. Indonesia's population is 235,000,000. 10 times the Australian population. It matters little if Australia's defence force is well trained if they send over 20 million civilians and supply each of them an AK47 in case they are 'attacked'.

They still need the ability to supply them. They are a third world country. I doubt they've got the logistical capacity to support 20 000 troops, let alone 20 million.

0 Replies

Anton, what an anti-American little monkey you are! Smile

The UK was about to beat Germany, and would have done so without America's help? That's simply nonsense.

America profited from WWII? I'm not sure my uncle who lost a leg on Omaha Beach would agree. And does your financial calculus factor in the cost of the Marshall Plan?

The US had no choice? More nonsense. I just heard someone refer to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as America's greatest friends. No more, but back then it certainly was the case.

America, under different leadership, could have easily sat out both World Wars with little ill effect.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep the US out of the war, not to "drag them in" or as a first step in conquering them.

I never understood why Hitler declared war on the US, but then he was a wee bit irrational.

If America did not enter WWII on two major fronts, it is virtually certain the Japanese Empire would have ruled Asia and Australia. It is almost as certain that the Germans would have ruled Europe and Africa.

What would have happened next?

Sure, Germany and Japan could have tag teamed America, but considering the logistical challenges they faced, it is unlikely. More likely, Japan and Germany would have squared off in India or Russia. If one were able to defeat the other it would only be a matter of time before they came knocking at NYC or San Francisco, but they could just as easily exhausted each other's military power.

In short, the notion that a nation protected by two oceans and blessed with extra-ordinary natural resources "had no choice" but to intervene in WWI or WWII is simply absurd.

Of course this doesn't mean that the intervention was born solely of altruism, but it should be hard to impugn the motives of a nation that could easily have ruled the world post WWII and not only did not, but sunk tons of treasure into rebuilding the defeated wolves that started the whole mess.

But you know those vile Yanks --- they'll do anything for the promise of a buck. Just like...the Jews!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

finn said
Quote:
If Howard is thrown out of office, it will hardly be because of his ties with the Bush Administration. Local politics trump national, and national trump global.

Why pretend a rule of thumb is an axiomatic truth? The measurements of decline in Blair's popularity in Britain run parallel with the Iraq war and not with job stats in Shropshire.

Well,for a relatively small European nation, sending over 5,000 troops to Iraq, and having about 200 of them losing their lives sort of makes The War local.

Not, in any way, to denigrate the contribution of Australia, but its troop strength has been around 1,500 of which only two have died and not from direct combat.

Not the sort of numbers to drive citizens from both sides of the spectrum to try and ditch Howard.

History will tell and unfortunately we will all be long dead and unable to gloat when it does tell, but if I can lay a long term bet for my great-grand children, it would be that history will favor the Blairs and Howards who sought to align their nation's interests and fate with America.

0 Replies

You better check your financial facts. The US finished the war with about double the wealth that it started with.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
finn said
Quote:
If Howard is thrown out of office, it will hardly be because of his ties with the Bush Administration. Local politics trump national, and national trump global.

Why pretend a rule of thumb is an axiomatic truth? The measurements of decline in Blair's popularity in Britain run parallel with the Iraq war and not with job stats in Shropshire.

Well,for a relatively small European nation, sending over 5,000 troops to Iraq, and having about 200 of them losing their lives sort of makes The War local.

Not, in any way, to denigrate the contribution of Australia, but its troop strength has been around 1,500 of which only two have died and not from direct combat.

Not the sort of numbers to drive citizens from both sides of the spectrum to try and ditch Howard.

History will tell and unfortunately we will all be long dead and unable to gloat when it does tell, but if I can lay a long term bet for my great-grand children, it would be that history will favor the Blairs and Howards who sought to align their nation's interests and fate with America.

Howard will be dumped due to domestic issues, the main one being the erosion of worker's rights.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
finn said
Quote:
If Howard is thrown out of office, it will hardly be because of his ties with the Bush Administration. Local politics trump national, and national trump global.

Why pretend a rule of thumb is an axiomatic truth? The measurements of decline in Blair's popularity in Britain run parallel with the Iraq war and not with job stats in Shropshire.

Well,for a relatively small European nation, sending over 5,000 troops to Iraq, and having about 200 of them losing their lives sort of makes The War local.

Not, in any way, to denigrate the contribution of Australia, but its troop strength has been around 1,500 of which only two have died and not from direct combat.

Not the sort of numbers to drive citizens from both sides of the spectrum to try and ditch Howard.

History will tell and unfortunately we will all be long dead and unable to gloat when it does tell, but if I can lay a long term bet for my great-grand children, it would be that history will favor the Blairs and Howards who sought to align their nation's interests and fate with America.

The alliance with the USA is bilateral policy in Australia, so your rhetoric misses the mark.

What tends to differ is the degree of uncritical alignment on issues (you will note, however, that Howard does not align himself with the US on issues where Oz believes its economic interests do not mesh with America's foreign policy) and the degree of fulsome expressions of love.

Generally, Australians agree with the alliance, but I think have been disgusted by Howard's lack of independent thought and analysis, as well as the invasion of Iraq.

There has been a book out recently which suggests the policy is less fulsome behind the scenes (eg it was written that Australian military people acted as restrainers upon American bombing in Iraq) and suggesting that the relationship is less one way than Howard is content to have it appear to be in public.

It will be interesting to see if this, and dislike of various other of his policies, will be enough to unseat his government when economic indicators suggest that they should be re elected easily. Bear the economics in mind, since there is no reason for a change of government if prosperity is the only factor.

The polls suggest he will lose badly, but, as I have said, there is only one poll that counts, and he is prolonging the wait for the election as long as he possibly can, in the hope that his government can peg back Labor's lead.

The campaign is already very personally dirty, which is an indicator of desperation, but I wouldn't be ruling out the little weasel.

He's already managed to quell a backbench revolt, (as Libs in marginal seats looked at the polls and feared for their jobs), which looked as though it might unseat him. This is a man who was ruled out of any chance of ever becoming Prime Minister years ago, by his own party

0 Replies

Deb, if the libs had a "Bob Hawke" to call on, Howard would have been gone. The only thing that saved him is the lack of a viable replacement.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Deb, if the libs had a "Bob Hawke" to call on, Howard would have been gone. The only thing that saved him is the lack of a viable replacement.

I think that is a significant underestimation of Howard.

I despise many of his policies and actions, but he is, in many ways, a consummate politician. His success is striking, and I think it silly to underestimate him.

The knives are out now, because the Libs are always totally ruthless in such matters and he can no longer guarantee them wins. But, he's been their most successful PM since Menzies, if you count success as election wins and economic growth.

0 Replies

Quote:

Wilso
They still need the ability to supply them. They are a third world country. I doubt they've got the logistical capacity to support 20 000 troops, let alone 20 million.

Troops? Who was talking about troops. I was talking about an invasion of civilians armed with AK47's and farming gear.

By the way, Indonesia's economy is just over 1/3 the size of the Australian Economy and growing at about 5.5% per year http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_rea_gro_rat-economy-gdp-real-growth-rate

Quote:

Finn dAbuzz

America profited from WWII? I'm not sure my uncle who lost a leg on Omaha Beach would agree. And does your financial calculus factor in the cost of the Marshall Plan?

Quote:

The US had no choice? More nonsense. I just heard someone refer to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as America's greatest friends. No more, but back then it certainly was the case.

Actually the Atlantic and the Pacific are still the US' greatest friends. Shipping costs a great deal less than land transport and so the Pacific and Atlantic are great allies in reducing the cost (and therefore competitiveness) of US goods. They are also strategic allies in that anyone wanting to invade the US needs a Navy, and we all no there's no other nation on earth that can challenge the US Navy (well, except those with diesel electric subs, and those with supersonic antishipping missiles, but they are a different kind of story)

Quote:

I never understood why Hitler declared war on the US, but then he was a wee bit irrational.

Hitler was Allied with Japan (one of the many mistakes he made).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm

What was irrational was attacking Russia when he had no need to, as Stalin and Hitler had already come to an agreement that Russia sit out the war, and Stalin believed that Hitler would honour that agreement.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_were_Russia's_allies_in_World_War_2

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Wilso
They still need the ability to supply them. They are a third world country. I doubt they've got the logistical capacity to support 20 000 troops, let alone 20 million.

Troops? Who was talking about troops. I was talking about an invasion of civilians armed with AK47's and farming gear.

Civilians or troops, they still need to be fed, re-armed and transported.

0 Replies

Of course. Hence why they bring their own farming gear. The body can survive about 42 days on only water. If you bring over a minimal subsistence diet you extend that time period dramatically...

During WW2 there was a scandanavian commando team that survived for 5 winter months on a subsistence diet mostly consisting of reindeer moss http://www.landrover.co.uk/gb/en/Adventures/Adventure_Quotient/Adventures_in_history/The_real_heroes_of_telemark.htm

...and if you then include basic farming which doesn't take too long to yield certain types of food, that time period becomes even longer.

By the way, last I heard, we only had 35,000 troops. On a war footing, and with combat fatigue, you have to rotate the troops, so at any one time we would have much less than 35,000 in the combat zone.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Jesus f@cking christ cjhsa. This is the last time I'm going to say this, and then I'll leave you to your fantasy. Get this through your f@cking thick skull. Australians HAVE NOT given up their right to bear arms. In my work place alone, there are SCORES of people for whom hunting is a regular past time. I know lot's of people who own their own weapons. Having restrictions on the type of weapons people can own, is not giving up their rights. Ok, now that's done, you can go back to the pathetic little world of made up facts that you live in.

I participate in many hunting sites and have never met an Aussie on one of them that wasn't embarassed as hell about the retarded gun laws in place in Oz. Of course, they still want you to come and hunt, they'll be happy to assign you an unfamiliar rifle from the "gun locker" so you can go out and maim something.... it's all about money...

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Of course. Hence why they bring their own farming gear. The body can survive about 42 days on only water. If you bring over a minimal subsistence diet you extend that time period dramatically...

During WW2 there was a scandanavian commando team that survived for 5 winter months on a subsistence diet mostly consisting of reindeer moss http://www.landrover.co.uk/gb/en/Adventures/Adventure_Quotient/Adventures_in_history/The_real_heroes_of_telemark.htm

...and if you then include basic farming which doesn't take too long to yield certain types of food, that time period becomes even longer.

By the way, last I heard, we only had 35,000 troops. On a war footing, and with combat fatigue, you have to rotate the troops, so at any one time we would have much less than 35,000 in the combat zone.

Such a force would lack the ability to project power further than the range of their hand weapons. They certainly would not have the capability to secure a strategically important target. And since most of our strategically important infrastructure is on the east coast of Australia, how would they cross 4000km of one of the harshest continents on earth in order to make such a task worthwhile? All the while protecting themselves from any counter attack. Our air force is small no doubt, but it is reasonably well equipped and would not be pressed to put the type of force you're surmising in huge world of pain. The point I'm making is that you need not be concerned with the current nation of Indonesia. Even with several million men under arms, they couldn't beat us in a pissing contest. The only thing we have to worry about in the foreseeable future, is Iran successfully developing a nuclear capability. Because such a capability would spread through the muslim world. Then we would have something to worry about.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Wilso wrote:
Jesus f@cking christ cjhsa. This is the last time I'm going to say this, and then I'll leave you to your fantasy. Get this through your f@cking thick skull. Australians HAVE NOT given up their right to bear arms. In my work place alone, there are SCORES of people for whom hunting is a regular past time. I know lot's of people who own their own weapons. Having restrictions on the type of weapons people can own, is not giving up their rights. Ok, now that's done, you can go back to the pathetic little world of made up facts that you live in.

I participate in many hunting sites and have never met an Aussie on one of them that wasn't embarassed as hell about the retarded gun laws in place in Oz. Of course, they still want you to come and hunt, they'll be happy to assign you an unfamiliar rifle from the "gun locker" so you can go out and maim something.... it's all about money...

Well, there's retardedness somewhere on those sites....but I don't think it's the Australian gun laws.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Well, there's retardedness somewhere on those sites....but I don't think it's the Australian gun laws.

You must visit them as well.

0 Replies

Quote:

Such a force would lack the ability to project power further than the range of their hand weapons. They certainly would not have the capability to secure a strategically important target. And since most of our strategically important infrastructure is on the east coast of Australia, how would they cross 4000km of one of the harshest continents on earth in order to make such a task worthwhile?

Doh, I see I left out part of the picture. I said farmers, because they would settle the NW shelf of Austrlaia. I doubt very much that Indonesia would be interested in the whole of Australia. As you say, it would likely be impossible to take.

As for nothing strategically important in the NW shelf, there you are wrong - there is land for a country with a high population and little land, but more importantly - If you look at a natural resources map of Australia, we have VAST Gas reserves off the NW shelf, as well as Oil wells up there. We also have the worlds largest diamond mind sitting up there in the Kimberleys.

0 Replies

Australians Losing Faith In the United States.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know