Lets talk about our under equipped armed forces.
EG; Why do we have no Aircraft carriers?

An aircraft carrier? Wouldn't it be smarter to get something to put on it first? Like some aircraft.

Spending money on arms is a waste of time and money. It is impossible to defend a country the size of Australia with around 50,000 active military personnel.

Future wars will be fought over water and arable land. Neither of which are in abundance in Australia. So is there any real risk of invasion?

How about we train each adult when they turn 18 and then they keep a gun and a box of ammo at home. That would have to be a deterrant for the Indonesians.

We are a big country with a small population. Now, either we allie ourselves to the school bully (USA) - which we have, or we have some sort of crazy weapon we can use on invaders. By crazy, I mean a weapon which demonstrates that we are crazy and therefore not someone to risk mucking with. And this weapon has to be all out of proportion to the initial attack ie 1000 indo troops land - we nuke Jakarta. Of course, you have to have two just to be able to show you have more than 1.

Aircraft carriers are very big-budget items, and most useful when deploying force a long way from home.

Spacscilib, true words mate.
National service, thats how it should be. those who leave school, that are not going to university or an apprenticeship should be immediatly placed in national service, in the service of their choice.
And as an addition to this, people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months should be conscripted. this will please the taxpayer, their money no longer going to bludgers, but to a good cause, the defense of their country. also watch crime and obeisety drop dramatically as people become disiplined and fit.
We should have some Nukes, i agree.
And of every one owning a gun with ammo, i say yes to the gun but NO to ammo, store the ammo at police stations and should something happen, the citizens may go to the police station to pick up their ammo. warehouse it in a massive underground dump in each major town.
Well, i suppose aircraft carriers are'nt absolutely nessesary for Aus, but it would be nice to have one just as a show of naval strength. Submarines are the way to go!  

Aussie Nationalist - that's not a nationalist approach - you sound more like a young liberal.  So let me guess - you are going to uni or you have an apprenticeship.


Quote:

those who leave school, that are not going to university or an apprenticeship should be immediatly placed in national service, in the service of their choice. And as an addition to this, people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months should be conscripted. this will please the taxpayer, their money no longer going to bludgers, but to a good cause, the defense of their country. also watch crime and obeisety drop dramatically as people become disiplined and fit.

I would go along with AH's post - we need to be able to arm ourselves as Howard has the whole country disarmed - those who are law abiding anyway. This will not increase the amount of murders we have currently - as criminals are already armed with illegal guns and knives to assault and kill whoever they want.

If anything crime may decrease if we were permitted to carry a gun with the appropriate license and training.

No, i have never been to university nor been an apprentice.
But i WAS in the army reserve.
Building up our armed forces IS a nationalistic approach.
Perhaps i was a bit liberal there, ive noticed my error.
ALL school leavers to have national service!
Afterall, you can serve an apprenticeship in the armed forces and attend uni at duntroon.

Oh and it wasnt Ausholes opinion about re-armament, Spascilib said it.

My error Aussie Nationalist.  I agree in principle with the concept of all school leavers having to do a year's national service - although I can say that now not falling into that category.

The year after high school is a difficult one and I have seen too many teenagers who haven't a clue what they want to do with their lives.  If it was compulsory for the rich as well as the poor - it could certainly point many of those who are undecided about their future in the right direction.

Quote:

Oh and it wasnt Ausholes opinion about re-armament, Spascilib said it.

Aus Nasho, you have twice acknowledged my opinion, even though you said it was not worth a response. I don't think you have one. Typical nationalistic rant. Lots of opinions, but no logic to an argument.

I ask you all again, why would Indonesia invade Australia? We have nothing here except for rocks and desert. We struggle to sustain 20m people, how would we help a country with a population over 250m?

Nuclear weapons are not a defence. They are a device for aggressive posturing. The thought of North Korea holding a nuke sent the world into disaster control. Why? Because it would force its neighbours to consider holding similar weapons. Next thing you know, every country in south Asia has a nuclear weapon. And the original deterrent has evaporated. There would be no offer of help from larger military powers (such as US or China) because they know that those nuclear weapons could be unleashed on them. Raises the stakes considerably, don't you think?

If you dropped a nuke on Jakarta, what would it achieve? I can tell you one thing, it would really piss the Indonesians off. Then they WOULD invade Australia. And because they are so pissed, they would massacre every last person. Those wonderful military arms you are spruiking now become the property of Indonesia.

The only way to defend Australia is to train our military personnel in guerilla warfare. An invading force may quickly overrun the country, but then they have to govern it. And then comes the opportunity for counter attack. Insurgency. Guerilla warfare. Iraq is a prime example of what happens when you invade a country with poor military weaponry. Invade in 7 days, and 4 years later you are spending one billion dollars a week defending against primitive bombs made out of chlorine and fertiliser.

I do agree with the concept of national service, but would call it something less polarising, like social service. And the service shouldn't be limited to military training, it can be widened to improve Australia in other ways. Switzerland have a good working example.

This will not increase the amount of murders we have currently - as criminals are already armed with illegal guns and knives to assault and kill whoever they want.

Most store robberies I here about are done with a machete, syringe, speargun, knife or something like that. And people rarely get killed. Often enough the robber gets chased off. Compare this to the US where everyone has guns and people get killed all the time. Most criminals are druggies anyway and the first thing they would do if they had a gun is sell it.

Germany also has a national service. A mate of mine did volunteer work. The guys who do military training just spend the whole time getting drunk, so they might as well be at uni.

Aushole, true words about guerilla training.
About indonesia, one reason for invasion is our mineral resources.
Another is, their motive would be idealogical.
Anyhow lets put aside the bickering and discuss things in a civilised manner, im interested to discuss things with someone who is idealogically opposed.
What kind of system does switzerland have in place?
What does AusHOLE mean anyhow.

Indonesia will not invade for our minerals. Any invader would be placed under a trade embargo by the UN and currency trades would be blocked by the IMF. They can't use the resources in Australia, because it can't support a large population. Trying to shift the ore out of Australia would be subject to the tankers being intercepted.

Indonesia will not invade for ideology. Religious wars haven't been fought for centuries. I can't  think of any wars in the last 100 years that have been declared on the basis of ideology. Have there been any?

As far as I see it, the only reason Indonesia would invade Australia is if someone came into power who wanted to conquer its neighbours for personal reasons. A megalomaniac. Some examples... Hussein, Hitler, Napoleon, Mugabe. Is there a deterrent to insanity?

Think about it this way. If you were to become the leader of Australia, holding the views that you do, would you invade Indonesia just for the sake of it? Even if you had a massive army?

Swiss national service...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Civilian_Service

AUShole. A pun on Australia and the great Aussie venacular, w@nker. Why? Australia is a great country, but not as great as some make it out to be. Plus, I like to question people's logic.

''Indonesia will not invade for ideology. Religious wars haven't been fought for centuries. I can't  think of any wars in the last 100 years that have been declared on the basis of ideology. Have there been any?''

Yes, WW2, Korea and vietnam.

''As far as I see it, the only reason Indonesia would invade Australia is if someone came into power who wanted to conquer its neighbours for personal reasons. A megalomaniac. Some examples... Hussein, Hitler, Napoleon, Mugabe. Is there a deterrent to insanity?''

Thats my worry, if someone like Bakar Bashir of Jemaah Islamiah takes over, such as by election or coup.

As for my big army, it is for defence not offence.

That wasn't about religious ideology. WWII was all about greed - lebensraum. Vietnam was about communism.

Technicality! he did'nt mention religion in the second sentence.
so i was right there..... there was indeed an idealogical part of the war, operation Barbarossa- the german invasion of the soviet union to destroy communism.
And of religious wars, there is on raging right now............. IRAQ.

Sorry, I should have stated 'religious ideology' in the second sentence.

After all, aren't all wars fought based on a difference in ideology?

The West v Iraq is not about religion. Even if you define the current situation as civil war, I would argue it is more about politics (i.e the right to govern the country) than about religion. It just happens that the political groupings are based around religious belief.

The Artillery is having fun over at holdsworthy today. Boom Boom all bloody morning.
Must be training to go to afghanistan.

I thnk we should have national service for a year for everyone.

Would do most people a great benefit.

I personally think national service is a good idea.

I always wanted to join up but never found the time because I had to enrol at uni.


They do it in South Korea and they're fine. I don't see anything wrong with it.

The guns have just stopped. must be finished or on break.

say yes to national service.

If puny Israel can survive 50 years on the backbone of national service than i am all for it.

Yes to National Service.

Why not take the Greek or Robert Heinlein point of view, full citizenship ergo the right to vote, access to government jobs and contracts, become a member of parliment/council/senate or the judicary or police force. Access to free or subsidised higher education, all these can only be open to those that have served in Nasho.

I also think that the national service does not necessarily need to be military. It could be as part of the workforce for national projects like redirecting rivers, or increasing the connectivity of our existing rail and road systems. Or maybe in the fields of nursing, or beautification schemes. Predominately it should however be military.

The Swiss model would be an excellant choice for Australia. This is a country that makes much of its own military equipment as well, including a very capable jet aircraft.

It works something like this..

They have a standing professional army of about 8000 full time soldiers. These are largely made up of instructors and special forces. National service is compulsory which is 12 months full time and then being a member of the reserves until the age of 60. After your 12 months full time your are expected to take your automatic weapon home with ammunition and maintain it.

Yes! You heard correctly, most Swiss homes are armed with automatic weapons. This is so they can go from a standing army of 8000 to full armed mobilisation in under 24 hours. You train and fight with your neighbours. they form a cell or squad that increases in size to platoon, regiment etc if needed. The key factor however is that they stay small and form the basis of a protracted guerilla war.

The Swiss decided on this system because they knew that they would have no chance of taking the Soviets on in a fight of conventional warfare. So they would have to defeat the WILL of the Soviets, and take from Soviet mothers so many of their sons that not even Soviet dictators could ignore the internal pressure and rage. It is what the Swiss call a HIGH ENTRY PRICE
The conventional way to take an well armed or defended position is to have 10 - 20 times the soldiers to do it. Therefore the Soviets would have to comitt 10-20 million men for Switzerland ALONE. Not including the other theatres of battle they may be involved in.

Every neighbourhood group is armed, knows where it's emergency meeting points are, who their group leaders are and there is a ready made intelligence gathering network amongst the civilian population. Most groups will have a preset plan of attack or defence which can mean destroying infrastructure before it becomes of use to the enemy. For eg, bridges will often be build with cavity points already build into them, that the engineers have determined the correct explosive charges required to bring them down, all the defender has to do is read the label, place the explosives and wait, if that is an option.

It is a model that Australia would do well to adopt. Certainly more effective than buying F18 Super Hornets.

BTW, one of the reasons that mainland USA and Australia were unattractive targets for the Japanese in WW2 was due to the National Character of the people and a "gun behind every bush".

Does that same national character exist today? Can we get it back? Cetainly the guns have been reduced. Thanks Johnnie.

I love everything you wrote and I agree with you in principle, completely.

Except I don't want to see NS. Give people freedom to choose.

locutius wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 4:49pm:

Why not take the Greek or Robert Heinlein point of view, full citizenship ergo the right to vote, access to government jobs and contracts, become a member of parliment/council/senate or the judicary or police force. Access to free or subsidised higher education, all these can only be open to those that have served in Nasho.

Thanks easel, Yes I'm not against them choosing, but for the Greeks or Heinleins 'Starship Troopers' (superb read BTW) you need to do Nasho to be a FULL CITIZEN and enjoy the privledges of full citizenship. ;)

I must have skimmed that part!

Seems like a perfect system.

Sounds like a caste system to me. Isn't that how the aristocracy arose in Europe? Soldiers should ge paid, and free education is one of doing it, except it's a bit of a lame duck for those soldiers who aren't suited to taking advantage of it. However people should not be denied rights based on lack of national service. I'd much prefer a draft when needed to the sort of system that creates an internal need for perpetual war. Your suggestion denies people rights in order to solve a problem that does not exist.

Quote:

I also think that the national service does not necessarily need to be military. It could be as part of the workforce for national projects like redirecting rivers, or increasing the connectivity of our existing rail and road systems. Or maybe in the fields of nursing, or beautification schemes. Predominately it should however be military.

A large, ready trained (12 months of full time service) reserve force is MUCH preferable to draw on in in the instance of a hostile invasion than rushing everyone through basic, minimal, inadequate training in order to get them to the front lines.

easel, I wanted to mention before that the system probably needs for it to work as a compulsory system for it to operate effectively. As the enemy needs to meet organised and experienced resistance everywhere. There is a superb book on the subject called "Total Resistance". Experience, as you rightly pointed out to FD, is preferable to the rush job of the unprepared.

Now another option could be that only volunteers can be used for overseas conflicts that do not involve an invader. Nashos are only obligated for defence. I don't know, just throwing out ideas :)

FD
No, doesn't sound like a caste system to me, freedom does not mean lack of obligation, actually just the opposite in my opinion.

Of couse people would be paid while doing service, possibly at a reduced rate because certain living expenses would obviously be taken care of such as clothing, food and board.

There may be other programs besides access to free or subsidised education for those that can't take advantage of it. Government apprenticships or fast tracking to junior government positions. etc.

Peoples rights and obligations are at the very core of the issue. I don't think the Swiss feel that way. It seems it is an obligation they take both seriously and with zeal. They love their country and their way of life and understand the realities of protecting it. Expansionist aggressors don't usually have sloppy armed forces.

Of course the Swiss system IS compulsory, so denying a citizen access to some of the things I mentioned would be a non issue fore them.

If it is an obligation, that implies a draft. Luckily we are far from that. I'd much prefer a small number of elite troops than a mass of cannon fodder. It's called specialisation, and is the foundation of modern society.

You don't have to do it, but if you don't you miss out on certain benefits.


Quote:

I'd much prefer a small number of elite troops than a mass of cannon fodder.

I wouldn't. Can you tell me why you would?

Because cannon fodder is no longer useful in modern war. Not that it ever was, but the difference is far more extreme today. Lets say you train 85% of the population for one year each. This would be a significant commitment to the armed forces and would be a drain on the sopciety. If you took half that number of people, and traine dthem instead for two years, or an even smaller number and trained them constantly, you would have a far more formiddable force. That's just the nature of modern warfare. That's why we are kickking arse in the middle east. That's why the death rate is so skewed.

If it comes to an all out brawl, then obviously you train every person who is not needed to produce food, tanks, aircraft, ships, ammo etc at home as quickly as you can. But even then you would be lucky to have 50% of the population combat trained.

You don't have to do it, but if you don't you miss out on certain benefits.

By certain benefits, do you mean a salary from the armed forces, or the right to vote or have children?

While I agree with the importance and effectiveness of elite forces such as the SAS, and the fact that they can have an effect out all proportion to their size. Each one however costs a small fortune to train, many millions of dollars. Preferably these highly trained individuals would be better used by forming the nucleus of already trained troops, especially those trained (as suggested) in unconventional warfare.

It was this type of resistance that was able to defeat superpowers in Vietnam and Afganistan.

The idea of this system, is that it is a defencive system rather than an agressive system. Also for the system to be truly effective it needs to be implimented with a lead time of many years. Certainly we may be 'far' from the need of this military model, with Australia's open and vunerable borders, even a medium power could conduct a raid that cripples our tactical ability to project power, or even to support troops properly across our vast spaces. Once that is done the ability to take and more importantly, HOLD ground falls within the realms of possibility. No one says that the whole of Australia would need to be conquered.

And as for a non-military national service, that is one step short of communism. A German friend of mine did some kind of civil service instead, which he took half seriously. His mates who did the national service just made it one giant piss up.

It is our economy that ultimately drives our military success. We stay ahead by being richer. We need to keep doing that to stay ahead. Draining the economy for a massive military that is unnecessary would undermine our economy and our society. The size of our military should reflect the level of genuine threat.

FD

The use of the term cannon fodder is not an accurate way to look at unconvetional forces. They are not used that way. They use hit and run tactics, ambush, and live off the materials of the enemy. one of the mistakes the Americans made in Vietnam was using body counts to gauge success rather than weapon counts.

Part of the reason we are kicking ass in Iraq is that not everyman has quality military training, equipment nor will to repell us. If we were in the Swiss counrtyside it would be a very different story.

Also special forces can achieve certain tactical and strategic missions, and do them well. But to control ground you still need grunts. troops on the ground in numbers. That has been historically born out.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:38pm:

And as for a non-military national service, that is one step short of communism.

Its was put up as an option, there would be some people possibly physically incapable of doing military service, this could be an alternative. As for communism, they are not being forced into a job for life, only temporarily and part-time.


freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:38pm:

A German friend of mine did some kind of civil service instead, which he took half seriously. His mates who did the national service just made it one giant piss up.

but that only shows their own lack of obligation to their country, rather than a fault of the model.


freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 7:38pm:

It is our economy that ultimately drives our military success. We stay ahead by being richer. We need to keep doing that to stay ahead. Draining the economy for a massive military that is unnecessary would undermine our economy and our society. The size of our military should reflect the level of genuine threat.

You also make yourself obvious by being richer than everyone else. and if you don't have some muscle you can be a target. There is no massive full time military machine. I am not talking about modeling it on Sparta. Its about the ability to mobilise large trained civilian forces, who when not militarily occupied ARE contributing to the wealth of their country.

Part time communism is still communism.

I am not talking about modeling it on Sparta. Its about the ability to mobilise large trained civilian forces, who when not militarily occupied ARE contributing to the wealth of their country.

Except when they are drinking beer in the training camps for your little army.

Perhaps it's time to put some meat on the bones of this suggestion. What % of the population do you imagine training, and for how long?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 10:15pm:

Part time communism is still communism.

Or is one step short of communism, socialism ;). I don't shy away from all socialist ideals. Besides it could equally be Nationalist. Or it could be the prudent solution for a large country with a small population that finds itself parked at the bottom of the world with no ABSOLUTE guarantee that we will be aided at a time of conflict.


freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 10:15pm:

I am not talking about modeling it on Sparta. Its about the ability to mobilise large trained civilian forces, who when not militarily occupied ARE contributing to the wealth of their country. Except when they are drinking beer in the training camps for your little army.

Not so little an army, but remember NOT a full time army. And not my army, Australia's army. Not sure why they would be sitting around drinking beer? I expect they would be training. While they may not be contributing to the wealth of Australia during this time, they will be contributing to the security of Australia. Sorry to trivialise it like that.


freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 10:15pm:

Perhaps it's time to put some meat on the bones of this suggestion. What % of the population do you imagine training, and for how long?

% of the population I'm not sure about. Need to think about that one.

As for how long. I gave a sample of possibilities ie 12 months full time training, but it could be 6 months or 2 years. THAT could vary with specialisations, talent or enthusiasm of the recruit. Then an ongoing part-time committment similar to reserve forces now. One weekend a month, 2 weeks a year. Maybe till the age of 45, optional after that possibly.

Trying to find figures for the number of school leavers per year without luck, but the figure that I imagined for training was in the 20 -30 thousand per year.

It could be something that could be deferred, but the benifits of full citizenship (the right to vote, access to government jobs and contracts, become a member of parliment/council/senate or the judicary or police force. Access to free or subsidised higher education etc) are also withheld until this duty is undertaken. So if you think that you can do without it or wait till 60 for your firm to get that lucrative government contract, get to spend the countries money, fine leave your service until then.

Sounds pretty undemocratic to me.

In what way? You see no obligations to community by their citizens?

Also not everything that is undemocratic is bad. In fact there are many things we have today that are undemocratic. Where is our direct representation etc. The fact that we vote for parties across a broad range of issues, those parties then in turn claim a mandate to make all types of decisions. The sale of Telstra for eg. forgive me if I am wrong but the last polls I saw, the vast majority of Australians were against it.

Ref: the issue of global overpopulation and competition for space and resourses. I'm just throwing out a possible option. If Australians decided they did not want that, fine. God help us if we have to defend ourselves with minimum outside aid. Even if you increased our special forces 20 fold to 8000. The fact that they are able to do a large amount of what you see is due to the incredible levels of support behind them in terms of equipment and material. Eventually as the tide turns in your favour, if it does, you need to control the ground. 8000 will not do it for Oz.

The other option, get nuclear weapons.

In what way? Taking away people's right to vote is undemocratic.

I think I may have missed your point Locutious, are we saying putting kids in the army is good for them, or good for the country?

If it is for their own good, then I accept that many could benefit from some sort of disciplined training, but if you think it would equip us to resist invasion from ANY of the neighbouring regions who may desire our space and resources, then I think you already rejected that as ever really being a viable option, with a land of this size, and a population, and economy too small to support it.

We do not have a lot in common with Switzerland or Israel.

Which goes back to FD's point about taking away people's citizenship rights, unless they do basic service, as being undemocratic.
Next we will take away their rights if they smoke?
Or if they are bad driver's? (that gets rid of the womens lobby)

So while I see it could have some real benefits to bring in national service, I doubt that linking it to citizenship  rights would be fair, or feasible.

It would be a good way of stopping pacifists, hippies, libertarians, animal right activists etc from voting and screwing up the election results. You wouldn't even have to talk to them any more. You could just respond that they obviously aren't a citizen so their opinion doesn't count. You could turn them into a permanent underclass of people who are free but will clean your toilet for 50c.

Mozza, I reckon there would certainly be benefits for a lot of young people in doing it. The claims that this type of training can build things like confidence, fitness, independance AND teamwork, are very real. Gives them some discipline as well. Discipline works both ways and they can find that out. Often the bloke with the stipes on his arm has earned them. They can earn them. etc The other thing that I imagine would have a large benefit would be that they will have greater contact with people from all over the country and will break down some of the jingoist Statism that goes on. It will cement friendships all round the country. They may love it deeper and more genuinely than just during international sporting events.

Have said all that, I think the major benefit would be for the country itself. And because we are proactive with a armed force geared predominately toward defence, we would gain international respect and even prestige. The force would not be about projecting power.

As well as some of these other benefits that FD mentions.
Quote:

It would be a good way of stopping pacifists, hippies, libertarians, animal right activists etc from voting and screwing up the election results

or was that just cheap ridicule :-?

We cannot link it to citizenship, but we could to money!

The wealthy kids get out of doing anything they don't want to any way, so we may as well make a quid out of it.

But in principle I agree with your basic premise, just a bit hazy about how the  compulsary part would work.

You know, I want to write a lot of stuff right now.

But I won't.

Sorry.

I will contribute this though:

If you aren't prepared to die defending your way of life, you don't deserve your way of life, and therefore if you are unwilling to fight, you shouldn't have the right to vote in order to yield influence over the country you aren't prepared to fight for. You should take the love of your country seriously and be preprepared rather than jumping in at the last minute.

Also, this militia should be outside the government, in the sense that it is only used for homeland defence, is not controlled by politicians, and CAN be used for legitimate overthrow of the government in the case where the government becomes a threat to the country.

I am quite incoherent because I am tired. Sorry.

I agree with the idea of compulsory national service.
They could do all sorts of national work, not just shooting at targets.

it'ld help Aussie and Australians.

People are prepared to fight and die for this country and for our way of life. One of the things they are prepared to fight for is universal suffrage, which is what you want to take away. Being prepared to fight for your country, and being prepared to join some dodgy militia with nothing to do are not the same thing.

This is interesting. I've seen people suggest something similar for Australia.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.


Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,


"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)


The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,


"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."


The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.


He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_community_org.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601

I hate to admit it, but I actually agree with sprint here.

National service could really do a lot to fix some of the serious disclipine problems Australia is facing.

freediver wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 11:00am:

People are prepared to fight and die for this country and for our way of life. One of the things they are prepared to fight for is universal suffrage, which is what you want to take away. Being prepared to fight for your country, and being prepared to join some dodgy militia with nothing to do are not the same thing.

Agree. Compulsory NS is either huge drain on taxpayers money for little economical return or coercion into serfdom.
It doesn't promote discipline but increase sophistication of criminal gangs. Dictatorial governments like nazi or commies loved it but Australia isn't like that   ...... yet.

Good on you Abu.

No need to disagree with everything I say, just cause it's me.

Howard?

Howard mantra?
You blaming howard again?
He increased spending on defence mantra.

Quote:

Howard? Howard mantra? You blaming howard again? He increased spending on defence mantra.

Strange!  I only recall saying in this thread that Howard disarmed us .  But if he is being blamed for something else - my answer is yes - he's guilty.

Well no actually you mentioned Howard a few days back and chided me for chiding you.

At least you could admit you were wrong and apologise for blaming him for something else again.

I only admit I'm wrong when I am wrong and that's a very rare occurrence.  

If I blamed him for something, because he's to blame for everything, I would have been right.

yawn..

so how long do we have to wait till you admit you were wrong again this time?

Quote:

yawn.. so how long do we have to wait till you admit you were wrong again this time?

I can't even remember what I was supposed to have written.  I rarely mention Howard these days because there's a new PM to "dislike", although Rudd's incompetency will always be preferable to Howard's despotic reign of terror.

If Rudd introduces national service for school leavers and skills the rest of the population up a little in defence in case of a future invasion - this wouldn't be a bad thing.

Cant bring yourself to apologise and admit you were lying and wrong...

oh dear what is the world coming to?

What in God's name are you talking about Grendel?

You have some obscure notion that I've bad mouthed Howard somewhere in another thread and then expect me to apologise for nothing.

Are you trying to start a pseudo argument?  Bad idea - because you know I always win.  

I don't lie and I'm rarely wrong.  :o

mantra wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

What in God's name are you talking about Grendel? You have some obscure notion that I've bad mouthed Howard somewhere in another thread and then expect me to apologise for nothing. Are you trying to start a pseudo argument?  Bad idea - because you know I always win.   I don't lie and I'm rarely wrong.  :o

God you're a bore boofy," stop pickin on the rodent" as Mantra said if she blamed the rodent for somthing, he deserved it.
You can thank the little t urd for the economic crisis we're in, along with his bum chum george w.
As far as national service is concerned, I hate it, I dont see the point sending people off to train to be soldiers if they don't want to, I remember Vietnam, and it was ugly.

Been spending too much time round the Muslims guys?

Tring to deflect and dissemble?

Mantra said Howard disarmed us. Those of us who know mantra well know she is obsessed with Howard.  He is the root of all evil according to mantra...  

I merely pointed out she was as usual wrong and Howard's government actually increased spending on defence.

She also had a shot at me the other week for picking her up on another topic doing the same thing...  oh dear...  I'm not going to look for it mantra and denial is your colour anyway so why should I bother.

When are you going to admit you were wrong on this one oh truth and light... after all that's what you said you do.  Admit when you are wrong.

I said Howard disarmed us - meaning honest people handed in their guns and the criminals didn't when the gun laws were brought in.  We have no way of defending ourselves against the common thug anymore.  They can shoot us - we can't shoot them.

Of course Howard had to increase defence spending and I haven't said otherwise and this was because his "warm" relationship with Bush created so many more enemies thanks to our unsavoury and illegal invasion of Iraq and the "war on terror".

Howard is past history now thank God - but as Skippy said he left behind a huge mess to be cleaned up and he can rot in purgatory as far as I'm concerned.  I don't even like thinking of him.

I don't remember having a shot at you and believe I have been quite agreeable recently.  I was joking about being rarely wrong obviously.  I am often wrong and will be the first to admit it.

I still don't understand this "denial" you accuse me of but as far as truth and light goes - I am telling the truth as I see it and as do others - perhaps you are the one who refuses to recognise it.

blah blah blah mantra blah blah blah...

even when you are vainly trying to wriggle out of it you still gt it wrong.  there was a buy back and only certain weapons were required to be handed in.  Other weapons could and were bought by owners to replace them.

Did you hand in your weapon?
I didn't hand in mine...  Like the vast majority of Australians...  I never owned one.   :D

ps.  you weren't allowed to shoot 'em b4 either mantra.

Yes Howard left us in such a huge mess Rudd just used $10 billion of it to help stave off a recession...  and the $96 billion in debt we don't have was also just a mess no intrinsic value whatsoever.

Oh and if you check your past posts I'm sure you'll find it.

The point you are still not facing up to is that you were wrong and failed to admit it.  This is a defense topic mantra...  no amount of changing the topic will save you.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 12:06pm:

God you're a bore boofy," stop pickin on the rodent" as Mantra said if she blamed the rodent for somthing, he deserved it. You can thank the little t urd for the economic crisis we're in, along with his bum chum george w. As far as national service is concerned, I hate it, I dont see the point sending people off to train to be soldiers if they don't want to, I remember Vietnam, and it was ugly.

Do you have a thinning pony tail??

You can only go back 25 posts Grendel and there is nothing I can see that resembles a lie.

Don't give us that crap about Howard and his surplus and paying off Government debt, because he did it at the expense of all public services - including public hospitals and schools.  He creamed the economy for his demographic bribing and to ensure public servants would always have access to their superannuation.  Too bad about the rest of Australia losing out to Howard's "free market" deregulated institutions.

Yes it is a defence topic and the coalition pumped billions into aiding and abetting the slaughter of innocent ME civilians.  Where has it got us - nowhere apart from having blood on our hands.


Quote:

The point you are still not facing up to is that you were wrong and failed to admit it.  This is a defense topic mantra...  no amount of changing the topic will save you.

I'm sure you've got some little snippet hidden up your sleeve that in your mind proves I'm wrong - so - what is it?  Before I make sweeping statements - I ensure there is some sort of reference handy for the cynics .......so what are these lies you keep accusing me of?

Actually Grendel a large part of this thread is about the defense value of armed civilians, so Mantra's comments are hardly out of place.

Soren wrote on Nov 8^th, 2008 at 10:31pm:

wrote on Nov 8th, 2008 at 12:06pm: God you're a bore boofy," stop pickin on the rodent" as Mantra said if she blamed the rodent for somthing, he deserved it. You can thank the little t urd for the economic crisis we're in, along with his bum chum george w. As far as national service is concerned, I hate it, I dont see the point sending people off to train to be soldiers if they don't want to, I remember Vietnam, and it was ugly. Do you have a thinning poly tail??

Say again in english?

bugger Howard.

Took cash out of health, to take guns out of our hands, then bought more guns for the government.

I hope he dies slowly and painfully.

Quote:

Say again in english?

I think Soren thinks you are some 60 ish Vietnam vet.  You know how a lot of them wear their hair in pony tails.... ;D

mantra wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 10:10am:

Quote: Say again in english? I think Soren thinks you are some 60 ish Vietnam vet.  You know how a lot of them wear their hair in pony tails.... ;D

Oh I see, an attempt at humour, ho hum.

wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 1:31pm:

mantra wrote on Nov 9th, 2008 at 10:10am: Quote: Say again in english? I think Soren thinks you are some 60 ish Vietnam vet.  You know how a lot of them wear their hair in pony tails.... ;D Oh I see, an attempt at humour, ho hum.

not humour, characterisation. I am just trying to form a picture to go with the sentiments and tone.
Harking back to Vietnam a propos Howard and Dubya is a bit fixated, so characteristic of the generation that is not letting go of its faded youth - thinning pony tails. Thinking of national service as an individual choice is also a give-away. National service would not be about self-actualisation, not in the 60s sense anyway.

As the saying goes - you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you.
(or the 60s version:  visit the soviet union before the soviet union visits you)

good grief..

So FD do you agree with mantra that Howard disarmed the country?

Do you honestly think that a handful of civilians with automatics can defend Australia?

Do you deny Howard increased defense spending?

oh and mantra...  thats' right I checked 50 posts...  yours and mine...  you will have to go back further to find it.

25 posts is only a few days mantra..  try harder.

Grendel you don't really expect anyone to play these silly games with you, do you?

What silly games...  I wish she'd bugger off with her Howard obsession and stop asking me to reply to her crap.

Is that what you are referring to fd...  me replying to mantra?

As for your crap...  the topic is about our ARMED FORCES...  not some rabble with a handgun.

You started this rubbish Grendel with some vague reference to something I wrote 50 plus posts ago.  Why didn't you respond then?  I'm not a mind reader and don't know what you're thinking or what post you're referring to.  I'm not sorting through all those posts and trying to second guess which one has upset you.

As far as wanting you to reply to my "crap" - you have been calling me a liar and asking for an apology for the last 48 hours and I still haven't a clue what you're talking about.  

And yes FD - Grendel likes playing these little games where he attacks someone for no reason.  If you don't respond - you're called clueless and if you defend yourself, you're called a liar.

He'll give up soon when he realises he's wrong again.  

>:(

Settle down mantra. You can't let people get to you like that.

Grendel from where I'm standing it seems like you're the one who's obsessed. You are the one making the absurd demands. This is a politics forum. People are obviously going to complain about the PM (or ex PM) here.

You are an idiot fd...  oh wait...  I've told you that b4.

I haven't made demands of anyone.

This is just all deflective crap.

I will state one more time for the uber dummies...  what I've said in just about every post here so far...  Howard spent more on defence he did not disarm us...  ie the ARMED FORCES...  

good grief..   :D

So fd when do you think you can get around to answering my on topic questions eh?

mantra  are you a complete idiot...  didn't you say Howard disarmed us?  

Isn't this topic about the Armed forces  ie the Australian defense forces...

Isn't it a fact the Howard government increased spending on defense?

Isn't it a fact you are negatively obsessed with Howard still and made a false claim which is why you should own up to the facts and apologise.

You already piked on the other one and I cant be bothered finding it for you as I quite clearly stated ages ago yet you keep bringing it up.

Stop insulting other members grendel.

Stop insulting my intelligence fd and abusing my good will..

when are you going to answer my questions or are you just popping in here to flame me?

Quote:

mantra  are you a complete idiot...

No


Quote:

didn't you say Howard disarmed us?

Yes


Quote:

Isn't this topic about the Armed forces  ie the Australian defense forces...

Yes


Quote:

Isn't it a fact the Howard government increased spending on defense?

Yes


Quote:

Isn't it a fact you are negatively obsessed with Howard still and made a false claim which is why you should own up to the facts and apologise.

No


Quote:

You already piked on the other one and I cant be bothered finding it for you as I quite clearly stated ages ago yet you keep bringing it up.

No....you do.

DWMT

Grendel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 3:48pm:

good grief.. So FD do you agree with mantra that Howard disarmed the country? Do you honestly think that a handful of civilians with automatics can defend Australia? Do you deny Howard increased defense spending?

Who is talking about a handful of civilians? I'm not.

So what if Howard increased spending. A great deal of the equipment they purchased or locked Australia into purchasing is crap or inadequate for Australias unique theatre of operations. FA-18 Super Hornets for example.

But Beazley was no better. When we decided on the Collins class subs, I'm pretty sure we had an option of some of the LA class nuclear subs for about the same cost. Idiotically we turned it down because the Australian public was not mature enough for a nuclear powered (not nuclear armed) option.

Soren, you are spot on with your analysis of national service is all about. I'm sure that people generally would take valuable life lessons with them after service, but ultimately it is about service to your country.

I also believe that far more serious investment in arms manufacturing should be on the agenda for Australia.

Hate to tell you this but Labor off-shored a lot of our manufacturing re armaments etc...  Closed down industries and now we buy ammo from Indonesia.

We have an ideal opportunity or did but mostly due to Labor new weapons technology...  Australian designed has been off-shored to the US.

As for the Collins class they may have started out Lemons but they improved...  in fact so much we beat the Yanks Nuclear subs in wargames.

I wonder if that says more about a combination of factors, for instance the quality of our crews, luck and the presumption of the Americans to expect something not quite a good. Maybe we hid the fact that certain problems had been solved.

Of course now we have the getting into range apparently sorted out, We still need to be able to take the shot. I think they should have been called the BUGGER-UP CLASS of submarine. They are better suited for countries that operate with much shorter lines of supply and shorter coastlines to protect. Nuc Subs offer more tactical flexibility.

We did have the perfect opportunity over the last decade to reintroduce arms manufacturing here - particularly with the "war on terror" perpetuated by the "Coalition of the Willing" and our resources boom.

It was easier to buy from overseas - hence our horrifying trade deficit.  Under the coalition - all obstacles were gone and the unions were castrated.

Easier to sell our resources for a pittance and then buy back the finished product with a million % markup.

good grief...  Whitlam - Labor- Lima - un - death of manufacturing...

::)

and yes both parties since then have done very little to correct the situation.  Yet some people keep voting them back in.

Collins class were quieter than the Nukes LOC...

Perhaps that's because the situation doesn't need correcting. This is like the old man in the forest who refuses to specialise in anything in case he becomes dependent upon bartering beans for corn with his neighbour.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24678509-601,00.html

THE role of Australian Defence Force reservists should be greatly expanded, to include not only clerks in the jungles of the Pacific, but Qantas pilots in the air force and fishermen in the navy during the down season.

The Ready Reserve axed by the Howard government should be resurrected to boost capability at a time when the ADF is struggling to attract skilled personnel, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has recommended.

Over the past decade both the US and Britain had made better use of their part-time military than Australia to sustain operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the report from the government-funded ASPI.

Similar potential was available for the ADF but a more flexible working arrangement with employers was required along with a pay review, said report authors Andrew Davies and Hugh Smith.

Significantly, the Royal Australian Air Force had started discussions with Qantas about closer co-operation, Mr Davies told The Australian.

"The air force loses pilots to Qantas relatively frequently and what they're trying to do is turn that into a managed process," he said. "The quid pro quo might be that some of the Qantas people might come back and fly for the air force especially when the air force is flying aircraft that are essentially airliners."

Mr Davies was referring to new air-to-air refuellers and surveillance aircraft ordered by the RAAF.

In the US reservists fly the most advanced fast jets including the latest F-22 Raptor fighter.

Current ADF Reserve strength is 25,408, most of whom (17,171) serve in the army, but better use could be made of the part-timers for overseas deployments, Mr Davies said.

One option was to resurrect the Hawke-Keating era Ready Reserve which operated from 1991-1996 before it was scrapped by John Howard.

The program was worth reviving because at its core was a 12-month full-time training requirement designed to ensure the soldiers were more usable.

Faced with heavier demand on their military personnel both the British and Americans had gone further in their use of part-time forces than Australia.

"In part because they've been much more stretched than us with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan," Mr Davies said.

To ensure the Reserves remained an attractive career option, the Rudd Government needed to close the gap in pay and conditions for full and part-time servicemen that would allow a "seamless" transfer between the reserve and regular ranks.

The British experience offered a new approach for use of Australia's part-time military, including the deployment of soldiers as light infantry on regional peacekeeping or humanitarian missions.

The ADF is moving in that direction. Most of the Australian troops serving with the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands are now reservists.

Other initiatives to make better use of part-time military include the establishment of a national ADF data base with up-to date records of civilians and their skills, ASPI recommended.

The hard-pressed navy, which has seen many of its highly trained personnel take better paid jobs in the private sector, is now working with the South Australian fishing industry to utilise skilled personnel during their seasonal downtime.

"Not all civilian skills are in operationally high demand, but there are some specialised skills that can sometimes make valuable contributions to operations," said ASPI. These could typically include IT, language and psychology skills.

easel wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 10:38am:

If you aren't prepared to die defending your way of life, you don't deserve your way of life, and therefore if you are unwilling to fight, you shouldn't have the right to vote in order to yield influence over the country you aren't prepared to fight for. You should take the love of your country seriously and be preprepared rather than jumping in at the last minute.

That should be voluntary and not be forced on people.


easel wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 10:38am:

Also, this militia should be outside the government, in the sense that it is only used for homeland defence, is not controlled by politicians, and CAN be used for legitimate overthrow of the government in the case where the government becomes a threat to the country.

The government is unlikely to become a threat to the country. Democracy was designed to prevent any single group or individual from dominating the country. The government will never have so much power that it becomes the enemy of the people. So if this militia is not under the control of the government, then who leads it? Who decides to deploy them and send them out on missions? I would like to think that this militia doesn't do anything that isn't sanctioned in a Constitution. All power-holding groups and individuals must follow the Constitution.

I don't agree with national service. And that is certainly not because I am anti-defence. As a former servicewoman, I wouldn't want to have people at my back who don't want to be there. It is not safe, and doesn't make for a happy workplace.

"Our inadequate Armed forces"


Our inadequate thankfulness.

Yes to National Service.

If you conscientiously object to the military then the option should be to do do civil defence such as the SES / RFS / Charitywork etc.

AUShole wrote on Feb 25^th, 2007 at 10:19pm:

Indonesia will not invade for our minerals. Any invader would be placed under a trade embargo by the UN and currency trades would be blocked by the IMF. They can't use the resources in Australia, because it can't support a large population. Trying to shift the ore out of Australia would be subject to the tankers being intercepted. Indonesia will not invade for ideology. Religious wars haven't been fought for centuries. I can't  think of any wars in the last 100 years that have been declared on the basis of ideology. Have there been any? As far as I see it, the only reason Indonesia would invade Australia is if someone came into power who wanted to conquer its neighbours for personal reasons. A megalomaniac. Some examples... Hussein, Hitler, Napoleon, Mugabe. Is there a deterrent to insanity? Think about it this way. If you were to become the leader of Australia, holding the views that you do, would you invade Indonesia just for the sake of it? Even if you had a massive army? Swiss national service... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Civilian_Service AUShole. A pun on Australia and the great Aussie venacular, w@nker. Why? Australia is a great country, but not as great as some make it out to be. Plus, I like to question people's logic.

You could argue that WW2 was ideological. Fascism v democratic freedom in the west and v dictatorial Communism in the east.

Swagman wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 2:03pm:

Yes to National Service. If you conscientiously object to the military then the option should be to do do civil defence such as the SES / RFS / Charitywork etc.

Absolutely No to NS. Would achieve nothing.

Modern armed forces are professional fighting units and shouldn't have to deal with a bunch of amateurs who don't want to be there and are there only because we can't think of anything else to do with them.

The whole notion is farcical.

Definitely yes to Natos..

We are talking about peace time training here people...

Do basic training, go on to higher qualifications or even sign on longer and get a trade...

Instil some patriotism which this country is sadly lacking...

Help these obese Australians what fitness is and show them that these more to life than a Fricken Xbox,,,

Teach them to take responsibility and how to take ownership of it...

It'll also teach them that there are consequences if you misbehave... no excuses... if you do the crime you'll do the time....

Teach them respect... god knows they are not getting taught at home or at school  >:( >:(

Only cowards would object to National Services

If it was an elite properly disciplined group of people... but something tells the place will be mix of thugs and boys that don't want to be there, or those who want to be there but are regularly tortured and occasionally "king hit" by thugs, thus it will turn into little jail at best and every boy's worst nightmare. There is no way you can grow patriotism this way.
The worst kind survives, and our intelligent potential screwed up.
Not with the zoo we've currently brought up

Where's the money coming from?.   :(    

wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:45am:

Where's the money coming from?.   :(

Good point - Australia is broke - we only survive by borrowing huge amounts of money.

wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:45am:

Where's the money coming from?.   :(

You of all people would dare to ask that question. When you go on and on about paying higher amounts of welfare, do you ask where the money comes from? When you expect small businesses to pay more to workers, do you ask where the money comes from? When you want the government to build more infrastructure (or at least replace every railway crossing) do you ever ask where the money comes from? No, you never ever ask that. So STFU.

You of all people would dare to ask that question. When you go on and on about paying higher amounts of welfare, do you ask where the money comes from?  No I don't.  Although there seems to be many others, that do ask.   ;)   

a)  Do NOT provide aid and comfort to any prospective enemy by relating in public how weak is our potential first response to any given threat.

b)  It has been a great truth for a very long time now that the Australian Defence Force has been not much more than capable of a 'force projection'** of about one or two Infantry companies.

c)  In the 1990's the Navy asked for SIX aircraft carriers - two 'fleet' carriers and four small ones, but able to patrol our shores and vicinity and provide support for offshore operations.  We would need aircraft and trained crews etc - a big ask.

d)  The reason there is no national service or aircraft carriers or a more adequate air force is MONEY.  MONEY that we are spending on foreign wars that avail us nothing but experience for the troops and tragic PTSD cases as occurred recently.

e)  I've been attending a course over the past two days, at which it was mentioned that there are courses on how to pass an interview to be recruited into the Army.  My response was incredulous - I said that I came from a time when two Army officers had a good idea what they were seeing right in front of them, and that such a 'public service' approach was ludicrous and pointed to some serious problems with command training and trust***, leadership, and recruitment.


** 'force projection' is the ability to insert a combat force on a foreign shore and sustain it in continuous combat for a specified time.  In the 1980's, Australia's 'force projection' feel to about two platoons for two weeks.  Hence the rise of 'special forces' as the band-aid to resolve the lack of a force projection capability in the short term, and to provide something with which to make a 'statement' on the world stage (WADR to all other units involved - I speak here of the policy approach - not your commitment and service).


***  You mean to tell me you recruit these people as officer material, train them, turn them loose with a platoon of grunts, uptrain and promote them, and yet you have no trust in their ability and skill, after considerable experience and training in man-management, to choose their own men?  and you replace a selection board with a 'how to succeed at an interview' interview?

DAMN!  WTF happened to the Defence Force in the last ten years or so?

wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:45am:

Where's the money coming from?.   :(

**segues into Colonel Grappler character from my magnum opus**

"When these goddamned politicians stop their pussyfooting cat-shagging fancy dancing around the tent pole at public expense bullshit - maybe they could consider being straight for a farken change and ASK the Australian people to help out with Defence.. maybe we'll have  something to fight with instead of ... THIS crap!"  (slings busted M-36 on the ground and picks up an ancient M-14 handed to his Legion REMFs just to make up the numbers)...... "At least I KNOW this'll farken work!"

$10 a head for everyone over a set amount of income (including businesses at GROSS profit point) per fortnight....

That's around maybe $15m times ten - that's $150m per fortnight to go into the coffers... times twenty six fortnights a year... that's $1.75bn a year - just for asking like good little kids.  Military Budget 2012 - $26bn - another near two would be a boost for basics, neh?

I reckon you could do what freediver suggests and upgrade the Reserve and reinstitute the Ready Reserve - much needed... or run a Nasho program.

TRY APPEALING TO THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE LIKE ADULTS INSTEAD OF FINDING LYING WAYS TO ROB THEM OF A FEW BUCKS - MAKE THEM FEEL PART OF THE PROCESS, LIKE THEY ARE WANTED IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, AND LIKE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SOME STAKE IN THIS COUNTRY AGAIN.

Besides - if the Air force and the navy are losing trained airmen and sailors - who are being attracted away by high civilian wages - how about a requirement for extended reservist status and regular training?

The US Air force does that, and I believe their navy does too.

The Brits retain their Territorial Army, with a requirement for, I believe two nights a week training plus camps.

Chrissakes, they have two TA SAS Regiments - but their focus is somewhat different from ours and much more dedicated to the long term strategic role.