Do we really need a defence force?

We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world.

New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Stop sniffing glue!

Looks like it not only sends you blind, it sends you stupid!



OC

Asking the question again for the sake of @Hot Breath

"Why do we need a defence force, when there is no real short term or long term threat to Australia? or at lest greatly shrink the ADF size." ii



(please note, i'm in favor of our ADF and in favor of increasing its size, i'm repeating the question more clearly so other can answer it more easily)

Big Dave wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Stop sniffing glue!

Never sniffed glue.  I leave that to losers.   :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:44pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Stop sniffing glue! Never sniffed glue.  I leave that to losers.   :D ;D :D ;D :D

We'd all be losers if we had no army and somebody decided to attack our country.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Congratulations, you have overtaken booby as the least intellegent poster on the defence thread. I thought it couldn't be done but you have left him dead in his tracks with this monument to total ignorance.


Maybe when school holidays are over you can go converse with like minded children, thinking about 'world peace' just like the supermodels and vapid beauty pagent contestants do.  ;D

Big Dave wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Big Dave wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:44pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Stop sniffing glue! Never sniffed glue.  I leave that to losers.   :D ;D :D ;D :D We'd all be losers if we had no army and somebody decided to attack our country.

1. We have no enemies;  The only threats we face are from Terrorists and they can be handled by the Police.

2. We are advantageously located;  We are at the Art's End of the Earth, no one has the means to mount an attack on us.

3. We have good relations with all our neighbours and most of the world (relates back to point 1);

So, who is going to attack us?   Why should they?  We are always willing to sell anything we have that they may want.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:27pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Congratulations, you have overtaken booby as the least intellegent poster on the defence thread. I thought it couldn't be done but you have left him dead in his tracks with this monument to total ignorance. Maybe when school holidays are over you can go converse with like minded children, thinking about 'world peace' just like the supermodels and vapid beauty pagent contestants do.  ;D

Good ad hominem response!  Really shows you're willing to discuss the issue!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:38pm:

Big Dave wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:17pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Big Dave wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:44pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Stop sniffing glue! Never sniffed glue.  I leave that to losers.   :D ;D :D ;D :D We'd all be losers if we had no army and somebody decided to attack our country. 1. We have no enemies;  The only threats we face are from Terrorists and they can be handled by the Police. 2. We are advantageously located;  We are at the Art's End of the Earth, no one has the means to mount an attack on us. 3. We have good relations with all our neighbours and most of the world (relates back to point 1); So, who is going to attack us?   Why should they?  We are always willing to sell anything we have that they may want.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

At the beginning of the 20th century who would of thought the world would go through 2 world wars. It's a changeable world. Do we pacify our country with the risk of being unprepared when the next big war happens. And it will happen.

The strong tribe ALWAYS end up taking over the weak tribe.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:27pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Congratulations, you have overtaken booby as the least intellegent poster on the defence thread. I thought it couldn't be done but you have left him dead in his tracks with this monument to total ignorance. Maybe when school holidays are over you can go converse with like minded children, thinking about 'world peace' just like the supermodels and vapid beauty pagent contestants do.  ;D Good ad hominem response!  Really shows you're willing to discuss the issue!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

Nothing of any substance to discuss, just moronic trolling as you always do on this board. Ad hominum is all you deserve, start presenting a rational valid argument, Ill discuss it with you. Until then, this is what you get from an ex-servicemen .... nothing but contempt

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:39pm: BigOl64 wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 4:27pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Do we really need a defence force? We are so far from anybody that they'd die before they even got here!   We are friendly with everybody (unless the Mad Monk antagonises everybody!)  What do we have to worry about that we need to fear our position in the world. New Zealand has shown the way.  Get rid of all the petty Hitlers in their storm trooper uniforms.  Save squillions and instead spend it on the people who matter, the citizens of Australia.  Sell of all the toys the boys have been using and put them to work doing something useful.   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Congratulations, you have overtaken booby as the least intellegent poster on the defence thread. I thought it couldn't be done but you have left him dead in his tracks with this monument to total ignorance. Maybe when school holidays are over you can go converse with like minded children, thinking about 'world peace' just like the supermodels and vapid beauty pagent contestants do.  ;D Good ad hominem response!  Really shows you're willing to discuss the issue!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D Nothing of any substance to discuss, just moronic trolling as you always do on this board. Ad hominum is all you deserve, start presenting a rational valid argument, Ill discuss it with you. Until then, this is what you get from an ex-servicemen .... nothing but contempt

So says one of the biggest Trolls by vote:

---

Do we really need a defence force?


It's like insurance ...

if you have it you'll most likely never use it

but you can bet that as soon as you decide to go without, the house burns down.

So my answer is Yes, we really need one.

We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC.

We don't need a defence force, we need a beefed up police force, a Gendarmie.   One that can deal with the occasional criminal incidents that require something more than the Constable on the Beat.  The rest of the time we just don't need super fighters, tanks, warships, etc.  They exist purely to stroke the egos of the politicians and the generals!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC. We don't need a defence force, we need a beefed up police force, a Gendarmie.   One that can deal with the occasional criminal incidents that require something more than the Constable on the Beat.  The rest of the time we just don't need super fighters, tanks, warships, etc.  They exist purely to stroke the egos of the politicians and the generals!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

You mean like the treaty we had during WWII? Where the poms said 'bugger you, were busy'?

When push comes to shove you just cannot rely on anyone else.

John Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

|dev|null wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 11:23am: We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC. We don't need a defence force, we need a beefed up police force, a Gendarmie.   One that can deal with the occasional criminal incidents that require something more than the Constable on the Beat.  The rest of the time we just don't need super fighters, tanks, warships, etc.  They exist purely to stroke the egos of the politicians and the generals!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D You mean like the treaty we had during WWII? Where the poms said 'bugger you, were busy'? When push comes to shove you just cannot rely on anyone else.

What we really need is an arms reduction treaty in South East Asia.
Maybe a 10% reduction every year & of course verifiable.

That way all the countries could save a lot of money on defense.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 12:19pm: |dev|null wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 11:23am: We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC. We don't need a defence force, we need a beefed up police force, a Gendarmie.   One that can deal with the occasional criminal incidents that require something more than the Constable on the Beat.  The rest of the time we just don't need super fighters, tanks, warships, etc.  They exist purely to stroke the egos of the politicians and the generals!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D You mean like the treaty we had during WWII? Where the poms said 'bugger you, were busy'? When push comes to shove you just cannot rely on anyone else. What we really need is an arms reduction treaty in South East Asia. Maybe a 10% reduction every year & of course verifiable. That way all the countries could save a lot of money on defense.

arms reductions? After years of arms reductions in the USA and Russia, the two countries STILL have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet 10 times over. Arms reductions are only good if you have more arms then anyone else to start with.

John,
an arms reduction treaty is still a good idea.

Without one the Yanks/Russians would have had
enough to blow up the world 100 times over.
It's quite sick that we ever got to that state.

We now have an arms race in SEA which must be stopped.
The answer is not to spend more but less money via a treaty.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC. We don't need a defence force, we need a beefed up police force, a Gendarmie.   One that can deal with the occasional criminal incidents that require something more than the Constable on the Beat.  The rest of the time we just don't need super fighters, tanks, warships, etc.  They exist purely to stroke the egos of the politicians and the generals!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

Your argument is that we don't need an ADF

When someone points out it's like an insurance against getting pummeled.

You state that we have ANZUS - ignoring the fact that to be part of ANZUS we need to have the ADF

Then you crap on about not needing an ADF again

It's just smacking embarassing to read  >:(


Might I suggest you troll a subject that you at least have a modicum of knowledge about, this one is way, way beyong your limited comprehension skills

Run away little boy this is for adults only,  ;D

If Australia had no defence force,  we would have NO 'ANZUS Treaty. 

Do you think the Yanks are stupid?

...and how would it have been if the japs had been in New Guinea UNOPPOSED?


OC

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

John, an arms reduction treaty is still a good idea. Without one the Yanks/Russians would have had enough to blow up the world 100 times over. It's quite sick that we ever got to that state. We now have an arms race in SEA which must be stopped. The answer is not to spend more but less money via a treaty.

A treaty?

Which one country do you think the treaty should be with?


And then what about the other countries, do want more treaties or are you hoping they won't step into the power void left behind by us and this other country dis-arming ourselves.

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

If Australia had no defence force,  we would have NO 'ANZUS Treaty.  Do you think the Yanks are stupid? ...and how would it have been if the japs had been in New Guinea UNOPPOSED? OC

Then was then, now is now.  I can find nothing in the text of the ANZUS treaty that claims we must maintain military forces.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 12:35pm: John, an arms reduction treaty is still a good idea. Without one the Yanks/Russians would have had enough to blow up the world 100 times over. It's quite sick that we ever got to that state. We now have an arms race in SEA which must be stopped. The answer is not to spend more but less money via a treaty. A treaty? Which one country do you think the treaty should be with? And then what about the other countries, do want more treaties or are you hoping they won't step into the power void left behind by us and this other country dis-arming ourselves.

Who said one country?
I meant all SEA countries to get together & sign a common treaty
to reduce spending on arms - which is verifiable!

SEATO?

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

SEATO?

That has been disbanded.

Maybe APEC could get it started:

http://www.apec.org/about-us/about-apec/member-economies.aspx


All we are saying is give peace a chance.

Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty.

I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA.

The suggestion is insane!


OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty. I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA. The suggestion is insane! OC

Would that be because of corporations making so much money
out of selling arms?

Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing.
What's the solution?

I know - the Yanks can sell us lots of arms too.  :D


It's called an arms race.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 1:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 12:35pm: John, an arms reduction treaty is still a good idea. Without one the Yanks/Russians would have had enough to blow up the world 100 times over. It's quite sick that we ever got to that state. We now have an arms race in SEA which must be stopped. The answer is not to spend more but less money via a treaty. A treaty? Which one country do you think the treaty should be with? And then what about the other countries, do want more treaties or are you hoping they won't step into the power void left behind by us and this other country dis-arming ourselves. Who said one country? I meant all SEA countries to get together & sign a common treaty to reduce spending on arms - which is verifiable!

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D


Hold hands and sing cumbaya, that should get the ball rollin

|dev|null wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 12:46pm: If Australia had no defence force,  we would have NO 'ANZUS Treaty.  Do you think the Yanks are stupid? ...and how would it have been if the japs had been in New Guinea UNOPPOSED? OC Then was then, now is now.  I can find nothing in the text of the ANZUS treaty that claims we must maintain military forces.

So?

I'm surprise more people don't discount you as functionally retarded, I know I have

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 3:34pm: BigOl64 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 1:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 12:35pm: John, an arms reduction treaty is still a good idea. Without one the Yanks/Russians would have had enough to blow up the world 100 times over. It's quite sick that we ever got to that state. We now have an arms race in SEA which must be stopped. The answer is not to spend more but less money via a treaty. A treaty? Which one country do you think the treaty should be with? And then what about the other countries, do want more treaties or are you hoping they won't step into the power void left behind by us and this other country dis-arming ourselves. Who said one country? I meant all SEA countries to get together & sign a common treaty to reduce spending on arms - which is verifiable! ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D Hold hands and sing cumbaya, that should get the ball rollin

It's idiots like you who get sucked into an arms race.

.

The Indonesians will soon have 180 of the latest Russian jet fighters.

What should we do?

"Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing.
What's the solution?"


The 180 copies of Russian crap does not worry me, they are too far away to attack Australia anyway!  They simply do NOT have the range.  Th only nations that buy Russian gear are the ones that cannot afford American.

When Indonesia starts buying warships and landing craft,  then i will sit up and take notice, not before.


OC

"We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC."



I have been a member of quite a few military forums both here and in the US for near 10 years,  and  I have NEVER read a more stupid suggestion than the above.

Please try and imagine, Australia as a signatory to a mutual defence pact,  with BOTH the USA and the PRC. 

Sorry Mr Breath, but you know NOTHING of the reality of defence,  or diplomacy,  or economics,  or plain old common sense.

Your suggestion is ridiculous!



OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:18pm:

"We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC." I have been a member of quite a few military forums both here and in the US for near 10 years,  and  I have NEVER read a more stupid suggestion than the above. Please try and imagine, Australia as a signatory to a mutual defence pact,  with BOTH the USA and the PRC.  Sorry Mr Breath, but you know NOTHING of the reality of defence,  or diplomacy,  or economics,  or plain old common sense. Your suggestion is ridiculous! OC

All I'm saying is give peace a chance.

If not this arms race will lead to miscalculation & war.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

We have an insurance policy already, its called ANZUS.  We should take out another with the new rising superpower, our largest trading partner, the PRC. We don't need a defence force, we need a beefed up police force, a Gendarmie.   One that can deal with the occasional criminal incidents that require something more than the Constable on the Beat.  The rest of the time we just don't need super fighters, tanks, warships, etc.  They exist purely to stroke the egos of the politicians and the generals!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

As has been pointed out many times ANZUS is not a military alliance like NATO. It obliges each party to do no more that consult with one another in the event of an attack. Our leaders proudly trumpet that we alone have involved our armed forces in all of America’s wars since World War II. The implication is that thereby the United States is deeply in our moral debt and that accordingly its armed support can be relied on in all circumstances. However history shows that Great Powers, no matter how close the relationship may seem, are unreliable. -A time for change: The US Alliance and Australian foreign policy

"If not this arms race will lead to miscalculation & war."


They have been saying that since 1945.

Two things, MAD - 'Mutually Assured Destruction' and 'Mutual Terror' saved the world from WW3,  and in particular the Cuban Missile Crisis where we came VERY close!

In fact at the time i would say we are NOT in an arms race!   That ended in 1991.



OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

"If not this arms race will lead to miscalculation & war." They have been saying that since 1945. Two things, MAD - 'Mutually Assured Destruction' and 'Mutual Terror' saved the world from WW3,  and in particular the Cuban Missile Crisis where we came VERY close! In fact at the time i would say we are NOT in an arms race!   That ended in 1991. OC

The arms race never ended but there were reductions in weapons.
Look up the START talks.

Actually the world will be haunted by the nuclear waste pollution caused by the weapons making - forever.

Yes, i know about SALT 1   and SALT 2   and START.   I have even seen the  guillotined B52s at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson AZ.   All lined up so the Russian satellites could photograph and count them to confirm destruction.

The US Congress refused to ratify SALT 2,  and so Pres Reagan ordered them chopped up anyway.



OC

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

It's idiots like you who get sucked into an arms race.

And you have all the maturity and understanding of world politics of a teenager girl.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

.

One of your most highly informative posts yet, Bobby.   ;)

|dev|null wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 12:46pm: If Australia had no defence force,  we would have NO 'ANZUS Treaty.  Do you think the Yanks are stupid? ...and how would it have been if the japs had been in New Guinea UNOPPOSED? OC Then was then, now is now.  I can find nothing in the text of the ANZUS treaty that claims we must maintain military forces.

Not surprising, as it's obvious you haven't read it.  If you had, you'd have noted this:

Quote:

Article II In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

And pray tell, how will the parties "maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack," if one of them disbands its defence force?   ::)

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

SEATO?

Doesn't exist as an effective organisation any more.  Basically started to fall apart the moment the treaty was drafted when it deliberately left the Indo-Chinese nations out, merely making them an "area of special interest."  This gave everybody a "get out of Jail free" card which they could play when the North Vietnamese attacked South Vietnam.   Despite what Menzies claimed, there were no "treaty obligations" WRT to South Vietnam when he announced the commitment of Australian troops to that country's defence.

When the Vietnam War ended, SEATO was quietly disbanded in 1977 and ceased to exist as an effective organisation.

SEATO's major problem was that it was created in the mistaken belief that Communism was under centralised control from the Kremlin, when in reality as a political movement it was made up of a lot of different organisations and individuals who all had their own ideas on how to bring about the Socialist Utopia.

A good case in point were the Vietnamese Communist Party.  While in the Republic of Vietnam, in the South, the US created a complete shadow government and were essentially running the country and the war, in the North, the Politburo would hold meetings to conduct the war in the South and keep the Soviet Ambassador cooling his heels outside in the corridor.  Once a decision had been reached, he was called in and presented with requests for aid.   

Chinese involvement was even more distant.  While 25,000 Chinese troops (primarily labourers on the railways) were committed to North Vietnam, none ventured South and all had been withdrawn by 1970.  The PRC was more of a hindrance than a help in the late 1960s because of the ideological schism between it and the fUSSR.  During the Cultural Revolution it got so bad that Chinese Red Guard cadres would lead riots against trains carrying war materieale' to Hanoi from the fUSSR, damaging essential war supplies. 

That in turn lead the fUSSR to resort to shipping by sea and that in turn allowed the USA to mine the harbour at Haiphong and that, alone with the Christmas Bombing campaign in 1972 brought the North back to the negotiating table and to accept an Armistice.   ::)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty. I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA. The suggestion is insane! OC Would that be because of corporations making so much money out of selling arms? Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing. What's the solution? I know - the Yanks can sell us lots of arms too.  :D It's called an arms race.

Got any firm references to that number, other than from your pet Indian Journalist?   What you should be saying, Bobby is, "Indonesia might get 180 of the previous generation Russian fighter planes."  You are aware that Su-30s are actually obsolescent? 

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:50pm: Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty. I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA. The suggestion is insane! OC Would that be because of corporations making so much money out of selling arms? Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing. What's the solution? I know - the Yanks can sell us lots of arms too.  :D It's called an arms race. Got any firm references to that number, other than from your pet Indian Journalist?   What you should be saying, Bobby is, "Indonesia might get 180 of the previous generation Russian fighter planes."  You are aware that Su-30s are actually obsolescent?

Actually - according to this article Indonesia has changed their minds:

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120809/175090713.html


This older article says 180 jet fighters from Russia.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2599072/posts

.

page won't flip

still won't

still going

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

. page won't flip

That's a recent YaBB problem, seen it on other forums too.

Edit: Probably an anomaly in the latest rollout of government/corporate spyware.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:50pm: Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty. I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA. The suggestion is insane! OC Would that be because of corporations making so much money out of selling arms? Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing. What's the solution? I know - the Yanks can sell us lots of arms too.  :D It's called an arms race. Got any firm references to that number, other than from your pet Indian Journalist?   What you should be saying, Bobby is, "Indonesia might get 180 of the previous generation Russian fighter planes."  You are aware that Su-30s are actually obsolescent?  Actually - according to this article Indonesia has changed their minds: http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120809/175090713.html

Gee, really?  How unsurprising.  So, they're going to purchase a lot less than the 180 you claimed.   Funny that.  Now didn't I say they'd never be able to sustain 180 fighters?   Looks like I was right.  Funny that...   ::)

Even more amusing, they're opting for second-hand F-16s.  So much for the superiority of Russian aircraft, Bobby...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:58pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:50pm: Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty. I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA. The suggestion is insane! OC Would that be because of corporations making so much money out of selling arms? Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing. What's the solution? I know - the Yanks can sell us lots of arms too.  :D It's called an arms race. Got any firm references to that number, other than from your pet Indian Journalist?   What you should be saying, Bobby is, "Indonesia might get 180 of the previous generation Russian fighter planes."  You are aware that Su-30s are actually obsolescent?  Actually - according to this article Indonesia has changed their minds: http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120809/175090713.html Gee, really?  How unsurprising.  So, they're going to purchase a lot less than the 180 you claimed.   Funny that.  Now didn't I say they'd never be able to sustain 180 fighters?   Looks like I was right.  Funny that...   ::) Even more amusing, they're opting for second-hand F-16s.  So much for the superiority of Russian aircraft, Bobby...   ::)

I didn't know that they had changed their mind.
It's not my fault.
Shooting the messenger again.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:28am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:18am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:58pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:50pm: Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty. I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA. The suggestion is insane! OC Would that be because of corporations making so much money out of selling arms? Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing. What's the solution? I know - the Yanks can sell us lots of arms too.  :D It's called an arms race. Got any firm references to that number, other than from your pet Indian Journalist?   What you should be saying, Bobby is, "Indonesia might get 180 of the previous generation Russian fighter planes."  You are aware that Su-30s are actually obsolescent?  Actually - according to this article Indonesia has changed their minds: http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120809/175090713.html Gee, really?  How unsurprising.  So, they're going to purchase a lot less than the 180 you claimed.   Funny that.  Now didn't I say they'd never be able to sustain 180 fighters?   Looks like I was right.  Funny that...   ::) Even more amusing, they're opting for second-hand F-16s.  So much for the superiority of Russian aircraft, Bobby...   ::) I didn't know that they had changed their mind. It's not my fault. Shooting the messenger again.

No, Bobby I am pointing out that what you claimed was wrong and what I said was right.   You appear to take this all so personally.  Are you always this defensive when you find out you were mistaken?   ::)

|dev|null wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Do we really need a defence force?

Do you really need to go on Craigslist for a date?

We have sweet bugger all army, navy, and airforce as it is. It isn't like these guys have been bored for the past 40 years. What if we have an incident that the local and federal police can't handle. You will be wondering what happened to our defence force that allowed Muhammad Allahu Ackbah and his merry band of hobo-looking men the chance to machine gun infidel school children during play time. But that would be quickly answered when you look in the mirror.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:46am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:28am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:18am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:58pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:50pm: Old Codger wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Yes, i knew about SEATO.  I was only giving it as an example of a SEA treaty. I cannot for the life of me imagine ANY country entering into a 'Mutual Defence Treaty with us,  and then stand back and watch us disarm. Least of all the USA. The suggestion is insane! OC Would that be because of corporations making so much money out of selling arms? Indonesia will have 180 of the latest Russian fighter planes if we do nothing. What's the solution? I know - the Yanks can sell us lots of arms too.  :D It's called an arms race. Got any firm references to that number, other than from your pet Indian Journalist?   What you should be saying, Bobby is, "Indonesia might get 180 of the previous generation Russian fighter planes."  You are aware that Su-30s are actually obsolescent?  Actually - according to this article Indonesia has changed their minds: http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120809/175090713.html Gee, really?  How unsurprising.  So, they're going to purchase a lot less than the 180 you claimed.   Funny that.  Now didn't I say they'd never be able to sustain 180 fighters?   Looks like I was right.  Funny that...   ::) Even more amusing, they're opting for second-hand F-16s.  So much for the superiority of Russian aircraft, Bobby...   ::) I didn't know that they had changed their mind. It's not my fault. Shooting the messenger again. No, Bobby I am pointing out that what you claimed was wrong and what I said was right.   You appear to take this all so personally.  Are you always this defensive when you find out you were mistaken?   ::)

My information came from this article which was recent:

Why Australia should scratch the F-35 and fly Sukhois

April 8, 2013 Rakesh Krishnan Simha.

The latest information from the link above was August 9th 2013.

I was the one who found the latest information not you.


Quote:

The reason, according to the Business Spectator is: “Indonesia plans to buy an incredible 180 of the Russian/Indian Sukhoi fighters, almost certainly including the PAK-FA T-50 and Su-35S. So the question is not whether the JSF is better than the outdated Hornet, but whether it is better than Indonesia’s Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA T-50 and Su-35S.

http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/04/08/why_australia_should_scratch_the_f-35_and_fly_sukhois_23629.html

Bobby. wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:28am:

I didn't know that they had changed their mind. It's not my fault. Shooting the messenger again.

So you are saying it is not your fault that you, don't do any valid research before formulating and expressing an opinion?

I think BR has every right to 'shoot the messenger', that is the whole point of us taking the time to point out that your lack of research skills and higher comprehension has you stating extremely erronous 'facts' from like minded feebs

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:09am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:28am: I didn't know that they had changed their mind. It's not my fault. Shooting the messenger again. So you are saying it is not your fault that you, don't do any valid research before formulating and expressing an opinion? I think BR has every right to 'shoot the messenger', that is the whole point of us taking the time to point out that your lack of research skills and higher comprehension has you stating extremely erronous 'facts' from like minded feebs

I was the one who found the latest information -
which may or may not be true.

You should thank me for keeping you up to date.

WS,

"We have sweet bugger all army, navy, and airforce as it is.'


Certainly not as good as what they could be or should be,  but I would MUCH prefer to be the defending general in Australia,  than the attacking general in Indonesia.

I have said before here, NEITHER country can take on the other and hope to succeed.  The task is simply too big! Indonesia has 13,000 islands, and we have 3 million square miles of very dry dirt.

And waffling on about fighter aircraft is a bit pointless.

OC

Bobby. wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 6:59am:

My information came from this article which was recent: Why Australia should scratch the F-35 and fly Sukhois April 8, 2013 Rakesh Krishnan Simha. The latest information from the link above was August 9th 2013. I was the one who found the latest information not you. Quote: The reason, according to the Business Spectator is: “Indonesia plans to buy an incredible 180 of the Russian/Indian Sukhoi fighters, almost certainly including the PAK-FA T-50 and Su-35S. So the question is not whether the JSF is better than the outdated Hornet, but whether it is better than Indonesia’s Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA T-50 and Su-35S. http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/04/08/why_australia_should_scratch_the_f-35_and_fly_sukhois_23629.html

Jeez using information based on the personal opinions of non-military internet bloggers and you found out it was wrong.

Who could have saw that coming.  ;D


Here's a hint stop believe sh1t from people who know less that diddly about the subject matter ie frriggen bloggers

BO64,


Pardon me for asking, but are you ex military?


OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

BO64, Pardon me for asking, but are you ex military? OC

BigOl cleaned latrines in the air force.

.

.

.

btb seems to have gone all dotty!

Bobby. wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:31am:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 7:25am: BO64, Pardon me for asking, but are you ex military? OC BigOl cleaned latrines in the air force.

Good thing you don't resort to ad hominum attacks lest you look like a hypocrite  :)


As a civilian you are used to other people cleaning up after you, in the military we clean up after ourselves.





To answer OC, yeah 10 years, RAAF aircraft technician, F111s and Helicopter Gunships

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:34am:

btb seems to have gone all dotty!

The page won't flip -
so I post a dot & keep replying until it does.
It's a pain - an old bug that never gets fixed.

BO64,


Thanks,  Amberley I presume.

I have an (ex) son in law that spent a lot of time at Oakey.  Started off as  Fitter and Turner and ended up as a Captain.

I had a glorious career in the army.

Went into Pucka as a private in the 20th National Service Battalion in August 1958,  came out a private in late October,  same year. I narrowly escaped demotion!

Both the Army and I were VERY pleased that day!  They DID teach me how to drive a truck!


OC

Double up

The question is counter-intuitive, but not so unreasonable as at first it would seem.

Except for when the Japanese threatened Australia with invasion, all our subsequent involvements in wars around the world have been totally unnecessary, and simply at the behest of the USA.

Needless to say, our current involvement in Afghanistan is entirely self-defeating, and absurd as a strategy for defending the people of Australia.

Young men ~ many with young families ~ have been dying over there, with meanwhile the Australian government has been busily engaged in accepting healthy young Afghan men of military age as refugees and migrants.

It's time to pull the plug on this whole nonsense of young Australians being flown way over to the northern hemisphere to play in real war games from which a guaranteed percentage will return in coffins.

Let the Yanks fight their own paranoid overseas wars in future without our help.

Enough is enough.

In reality Australia needs only a very basic, skeletal, and mostly symbolic military defence force, with 90% of our current military hardware mothballed against a future time when these may be needed.

***

The irony is breathtaking.

The only threat within cooee of Australia, now and in the foreseeable future, is that from Islamic terrorism born-and-bred within our own borders ~ and yet our government has Australian soldiers chasing shadows in some godforsaken backwater Middle Eastern country while at the same time sponsoring the influx of tens of thousands of Muslim each year to come increase the likelihood of mass-slaughter in our own homeland.

We are governed by idiots.

F111s, nice aircraft but using them to lug a ton or two or iron all the way to Djakarta was a dream.

Even a stand-off weapon was not worth the effort.

....then again,  a nice BIG nuke would have been much better!

did you ever come up against that hot shot young bloke they took out of Year 12 and taught him how to pilot one of these,  BEFORE  they made him into an officer?

Died in one I believe!

OC

Herbert,

Slightly OT,  but my ex son in law has just come back from Afghanistan, his son and daughter have both done 2 tours of the place,  and were mad keen to go.

Grandson has a VERY low opinion of the Aghans,  and reckons they are not worth fighting for.

Grand-Daughter has just finished a year as ADC to General Hurley.



OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

BO64, Thanks,  Amberley I presume. I have an (ex) son in law that spent a lot of time at Oakey.  Started off as  Fitter and Turner and ended up as a Captain. I had a glorious career in the army. Went into Pucka as a private in the 20th National Service Battalion in August 1958,  came out a private in late October,  same year. I narrowly escaped demotion! Both the Army and I were VERY pleased that day!  They DID teach me how to drive a truck! OC

Yeah a few years at Amberley and then up to Townsville for the remainder.

Service life is not for everyone, but for the few that give it a go it is a pretty decent time. I do not regret my 10 years even though it resulted in a serious injury and a white card. The good with the bad as they say. :)

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:05am:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 7:46am: BO64, Thanks,  Amberley I presume. I have an (ex) son in law that spent a lot of time at Oakey.  Started off as  Fitter and Turner and ended up as a Captain. I had a glorious career in the army. Went into Pucka as a private in the 20th National Service Battalion in August 1958,  came out a private in late October,  same year. I narrowly escaped demotion! Both the Army and I were VERY pleased that day!  They DID teach me how to drive a truck! OC Yeah a few years at Amberley and then up to Townsville for the remainder. Service life is not for everyone, but for the few that give it a go it is a pretty decent time. I do not regret my 10 years even though it resulted in a serious injury and a white card. The good with the bad as they say. :)

Don't tell me you were one of the poor sods who had to clean out the F111 fuel tanks?

They were all poisoned.

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:17am:

F111s, nice aircraft but using them to lug a ton or two or iron all the way to Djakarta was a dream. Even a stand-off weapon was not worth the effort. ....then again,  a nice BIG nuke would have been much better! did you ever come up against that hot shot young bloke they took out of Year 12 and taught him how to pilot one of these,  BEFORE  they made him into an officer? Died in one I believe! OC

I was in 9 SQN when he flew into the ground at Tenterfeild, sad day whenever we lose one of our own. We lost a few airframes during the 80's mostly drivers losing spatial awareness and flying into the ground.

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Herbert, Slightly OT,  but my ex son in law has just come back from Afghanistan, his son and daughter have both done 2 tours of the place,  and were mad keen to go. Grandson has a VERY low opinion of the Aghans,  and reckons they are not worth fighting for. Grand-Daughter has just finished a year as ADC to General Hurley. OC

Tis place is full of people who have never done anything with thier lives, looking to troll those who serve this country.

I just flame them and move on, not worth any effort in discussing the issues, they're just idiots.

Friendly warning: recent post's are off topic, please return the discussion back to "Do we really need a defence force?"

Friendly warning: recent post's are off topic, please return the discussion back to "Do we really need a defence force?"

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Herbert, Slightly OT,  but my ex son in law has just come back from Afghanistan, his son and daughter have both done 2 tours of the place,  and were mad keen to go.

It's a very good career move to get a posting overseas. It looks good on your CV for future promotions. Nobody wants to get into a real fire-fight with such a remote and non-threatening 'enemy'.


Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Grandson has a VERY low opinion of the Aghans,  and reckons they are not worth fighting for.

We should only be fighting for ourselves, or if one of the English-speaking Western democracies is threatened by an aggressor dictatorship.


Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Grand-Daughter has just finished a year as ADC to General Hurley.

Oh dear.

Say no more



OC[/quote]

Pantheon wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

Friendly warning: recent post's are off topic, please return the discussion back to "Do we really need a defence force?"

No!

We need the Swiss model in which every man and his dog has a loaded rifle at home, and is instantly on call to rally to certain points to defend the country.

A fully trained Reserve military capability is what Australia needs.

A gun in every home.

At present the only purpose our army and navy serve is to provide a smorgasbord of female-lovelies for the males to sexually harass, film in secret, and upload the porno videos to the internet.

That's all one ever hears when the news is about the services.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

Pantheon wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 11:30am: Friendly warning: recent post's are off topic, please return the discussion back to "Do we really need a defence force?" No! We need the Swiss model in which every man and his dog has a loaded rifle at home, and is instantly on call to rally to certain points to defend the country. A fully trained Reserve military capability is what Australia needs. A gun in every home. At present the only purpose our army and navy serve is to provide a smorgasbord of female-lovelies for the males to sexually harass, film in secret, and upload the porno videos to the internet. That's all one ever hears when the news is about the services.

Australian's need to accept the price of bring a sovereign state, we can either bit the bullet and have an middle power military (not a third world army) or adopt to a much cheaper Swiss model like you said, or we might as well become a indonesian provence or the 51st state of America.

Pantheon wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

Australian's need to accept the price of bring a sovereign state, we can either bit the bullet and have an middle power military (not a third world army) or adopt to a much cheaper Swiss model like you said, or we might as well become a indonesian provence or the 51st state of America.

We could disband our whole military organisation and for a relatively small annual fee place ourselves under the protective care of the UN's military forces.

Or we could declare ourselves a Neutral Nation.

Or ... scrap all the obsolete military hardware that we now have, and replace these with:

1. One nuclear submarine with long-range intercontinental ballistic missile capability.

2. 10 long-range fighter-bombers with the latest technology.

3. One nuclear aircraft carrier.

4. Only a skeleton crew of technicians to service and man these military logistics.

95% of the current personnel in the various service branches could be retired at enormous savings to the government.

Our current military hardware could be auctioned off to the Third World.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 8:23am: Grandson has a VERY low opinion of the Aghans,  and reckons they are not worth fighting for. We should only be fighting for ourselves, or if one of the English-speaking Western democracies is threatened by an aggressor dictatorship.

'People' like you tend not to put yourself in harms way, prefering that others do that for you, so I would prefer that you don't use the word "we" when talking about the defence of our country.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

'People' like you tend not to put yourself in harms way, prefering that others do that for you,

I've just been a voice-in-the-wilderness saying that all our young fellows and gals should NOT be in harm's way in these silly boutique mini-wars that the US keeps dreaming up for the dancing pleasure of its millions of military personnel.

But that aside, even at my age I'd volunteer to remotely pilot from a comfortable office in Sydney's Pitt street a drone with a nuclear warhead directed towards North Korea...


BigOl64 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

so I would prefer that you don't use the word "we" when talking about the defence of our country.

Did you know I once handed out scrounged cigarette butts to Japanese war criminals at Stanley Prison in Hong Kong in 1953?

**

If there's anything more ridiculous than the situation of our young men risking their lives in a shooting war in Afghanistan while newly-arrived young afghans are driving taxis in all our major cities ~ then I have yet to hear of it.

It's one of the most flaky, cockeyed scenarios one could ever imagine ~ and it's all sponsored by the imbeciles who run this country.

Old Codger wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 7:13am:

WS, "We have sweet bugger all army, navy, and airforce as it is.' Certainly not as good as what they could be or should be,  but I would MUCH prefer to be the defending general in Australia,  than the attacking general in Indonesia. I have said before here, NEITHER country can take on the other and hope to succeed.  The task is simply too big! Indonesia has 13,000 islands, and we have 3 million square miles of very dry dirt.

I believe a study was conducted discreetly as to the capabilities of Indonesian attack against Australia. It concluded that Indonesia could cause massive damage against towns and cities in the north of Australia, but would be repelled before it could get to Cairns, Townsville, and Perth, etc. Secondly, Indonesia wouldn't be able to fund longterm an attack on Australia, unless it was just to hurt the region in the north.

Whilst our army, navy, and airforce is fairly well trained, equipped, supplied, and disciplined, we could probably do with a larger force, just in the off chance that some powerhouse decides to make some kind of show of force against our coastline. Having volunteers join in a heat of the moment, but needing 6 months worth of basic training to be ready for some use, isn't really enough.

The thought of going without a defence force is something that only Bad Breath can explain to us.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

But that aside, even at my age I'd volunteer to remotely pilot from a comfortable office in Sydney's Pitt street a drone with a nuclear warhead directed towards North Korea...

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/12/19/C0044096-Korea_at_night%2C_satellite_image-SPL.jpg

This is what the satelites picture Korea at night. You can see the North Koreans basically spending their time without lights, with only Pyongyang showing some degree of electrical power. The South Koreans living the modern equivalent of any first world country, and able to fund keeping the lights on.

Do you really want to aim a nuclear weapon at that waste of time of a country? It would be a waste of nuclear weapon.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

Our current military hardware could be auctioned off to the Third World.

*Pfft!* What? Pay them to take our military hardware, you mean? The third world will expect us to hand things to them freely, just because... They need to keep their dictatorships running, and have to be able to have the population poor, scared, and baby factoring new workers for their slave economy.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:12am:

The question is counter-intuitive, but not so unreasonable as at first it would seem. Except for when the Japanese threatened Australia with invasion, all our subsequent involvements in wars around the world have been totally unnecessary, and simply at the behest of the USA.

Except for Malaya and Borneo, Herbie.  Then there was East Timor, not much "behesting" from the USA on that one either.  Then there were various UN commitments and of course our own in The Solomons.  Not much interest or involvement in most of those, Herbie.   ::)


Quote:

Needless to say, our current involvement in Afghanistan is entirely self-defeating, and absurd as a strategy for defending the people of Australia.

Well, you're partially right.  Our involvement in Afghanistan came about because of our then over-zealous Prime Minister, John Howard who wanted to leap onto the George W. Bush bandwagon and prove that Australia was with the USA, rather than agin the USA.   However, we should not ignore that it also came about because we are both a stronger supporter of the US and of International Law.  The US had right on it's side when it declared war against Afghanistan.  The Taliban government had refused to hand over Usama bin Laden, which the US had demanded because of his involvement in the 11 September attacks.   It made good sense to help, both from our own geo-political viewpoint and our alliance responsibilities with the USA.

That the US Government was stupid and decided to withdraw troops at a crucial juncture in the campaign in Afghanistan in order to attack Iraq, is not our fault nor should it necessarily show that there was something wrong with the cassis belli, Herbie.


Quote:

Young men ~ many with young families ~ have been dying over there, with meanwhile the Australian government has been busily engaged in accepting healthy young Afghan men of military age as refugees and migrants.

Young Afghan men whom are in danger of persecution, Herbie.  Bit hard to stay and fight when you're in danger of being killed, not only the "enemy" but people who are supposedly on your side as well.   ::)


Quote:

It's time to pull the plug on this whole nonsense of young Australians being flown way over to the northern hemisphere to play in real war games from which a guaranteed percentage will return in coffins. Let the Yanks fight their own paranoid overseas wars in future without our help. Enough is enough. In reality Australia needs only a very basic, skeletal, and mostly symbolic military defence force, with 90% of our current military hardware mothballed against a future time when these may be needed. *** The irony is breathtaking. The only threat within cooee of Australia, now and in the foreseeable future, is that from Islamic terrorism born-and-bred within our own borders ~ and yet our government has Australian soldiers chasing shadows in some godforsaken backwater Middle Eastern country while at the same time sponsoring the influx of tens of thousands of Muslim each year to come increase the likelihood of mass-slaughter in our own homeland. We are governed by idiots.

And you are, Herbie a troll and a fool.  A retreat into isolationism is guaranteed to fail.   ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

Do you really want to aim a nuclear weapon at that waste of time of a country? It would be a waste of nuclear weapon.

Except, of course, the rulers of this dark patch on the face of nighttime planet Earth have nuclear missile capability already installed and partly funded by Western Foreign Aid ...

This is why we need a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a missile delivery system aboard that could position itself off the South Korean coast for the purpose of intercepting and destroying any missiles sent our way by the psychopaths who live in La La Land above the 38th parallel...

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 2:35pm: 'People' like you tend not to put yourself in harms way, prefering that others do that for you, I've just been a voice-in-the-wilderness saying that all our young fellows and gals should NOT be in harm's way in these silly boutique mini-wars that the US keeps dreaming up for the dancing pleasure of its millions of military personnel. But that aside, even at my age I'd volunteer to remotely pilot from a comfortable office in Sydney's Pitt street a drone with a nuclear warhead directed towards North Korea... BigOl64 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 2:35pm: so I would prefer that you don't use the word "we" when talking about the defence of our country. Did you know I once handed out scrounged cigarette butts to Japanese war criminals at Stanley Prison in Hong Kong in 1953? ** If there's anything more ridiculous than the situation of our young men risking their lives in a shooting war in Afghanistan while newly-arrived young afghans are driving taxis in all our major cities ~ then I have yet to hear of it. It's one of the most flaky, cockeyed scenarios one could ever imagine ~ and it's all sponsored by the imbeciles who run this country.

Your political opinions about Australia's involvement in the Ghan and Iraq aside; we are still conduction operations in Timor Leste and have been since the late 90's. Without a decent defence force, are we to abandon our weaker neighbours to stronger more beligerent countries like we did in '75? An act of cowardice we should be eternally ashamed of, thanks to whitlam and his gutless cronies.  >:(

If you are seen as selfish and cowardly, soon enough you will get to look after yourself and in a time of need everyone will treat you as you deserve.

I would prefer that didn't happen to Australia; we have security obligations to our neighbours, how about we at least try to meet them

Silly question really, of course we need a military.

WS,


"I believe a study was conducted discreetly as to the capabilities of Indonesian attack against Australia. It concluded that Indonesia could cause massive damage against towns and cities in the north of Australia, but would be repelled before it could get to Cairns, Townsville, and Perth, etc. Secondly, Indonesia wouldn't be able to fund longterm an attack on Australia,"


This claim prompts the obvious question, HOW?

Where are the attack bases sites, what range has her assets?  Are they only fighter aircraft or long range bombers?  What models are available?  Is there a ship borne invasion expected?  How is that invasion going to be mounted.  Where? How will it be re-supplied?

My BS Detector just went off!


OC

.

.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Except for Malaya and Borneo, Herbie.  Then there was East Timor, not much "behesting" from the USA on that one either.

These had absolutely nothing to do with us. None of these foreign bun-fights posed the slightest threat to Australia's security and our continuing success as a First World nation in a sea of Third World warlordships.


Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Then there were various UN commitments and of course our own in The Solomons.  Not much interest or involvement in most of those, Herbie.   ::)

So-called 'commitments' to the UN have never been ratified by the Australian people through a referendum, and therefore they lack legitimacy and are null and void so far as the bulk of the Australian public is concerned.

Every last 'commitment' signed by our politicians with the UN are agreements in which Australia is never the beneficiary, but always the benefactor. Endless Foreign Aid, and a 'commitment' to populate our suburbs with people who are unassimilable for the reason that Islam commands primary loyalty and is intolerant of its congregation marrying outsiders who refuse to convert.


Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Our involvement in Afghanistan came about because of our then over-zealous Prime Minister, John Howard who wanted to leap onto the George W. Bush bandwagon and prove that Australia was with the USA, rather than agin the USA.

Under any other PM the result would have been precisely the same. Our sending troops has always been to keep up our payments for US protection should Australia ever come under threat from our northern neighbours.


Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

The US had right on it's side when it declared war against Afghanistan.  The Taliban government had refused to hand over Usama bin Laden, which the US had demanded because of his involvement in the 11 September attacks.   It made good sense to help, both from our own geo-political viewpoint and our alliance responsibilities with the USA.

The decision to mount a military invasion of Afghanistan proved to be yet another pratfall that made the Americans look like incompetent fools ~ and us with them.

Ten years after the invasion, and Osama bin Laden was still at large and giving instructions via his satellite phone.

Yet another epic fail by the Yanks and their utterly pathetic intelligence services.


Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

And you are, Herbie a troll and a fool.  A retreat into isolationism is guaranteed to fail.   ::)

Any troops sent overseas for military adventures should be strictly on a volunteer basis.

Herbert,

"Any troops sent overseas for military adventures should be strictly on a volunteer basis."



ANY person who signs up now is a VOLUNTEER for service as required.  His application is not accepted otherwise.  We do NOT have Conscription!    Our grandchildren certainly understood that.

And we do not have referendums for all the decisions made by our ELECTED representatives in Canberra.  They are charged with running the country,  and yoy cannot have a referendum every time a decision comes up.

You would have chaos.


OC

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 7:41am:

I would prefer that didn't happen to Australia; we have security obligations to our neighbours, how about we at least try to meet them

.

We owe them FA.

Our cities and suburbs already look like a foreign country due to decades of immigrating people from the Third World who bear no physical resemblance to us, and who identify first with their own ethnic community, and then to their Muslim religion.

Australians are rapidly being turned into strangers in their own land due to 'commitments' to UN treaties NOT to discriminate, and to import people bolus-bolus from all parts of the world regardless of whether or not they are compatible with the Australian mainstream.

We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours.

Why has my point been lost in this thread?

You all sound like war mongers.

Old Codger wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

And we do not have referendums for all the decisions made by our ELECTED representatives in Canberra.

You're off with the fairies again. Hearing voices. Nobody has said a referendum should be held to decide every issue. 


Old Codger wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

They are charged with running the country,

Wrong.

The Faceless bureaucrats ~ (100 for every politician) ~ are the ones charged with the mechanics of running the country.

The politicians are there to represent the will of the people, and to translate this into law and into policy. It is NOT their job to 'lead', but to do the bidding of Majority Opinion in the community.

I once worked in a factory where the supervisor told us to no longer think of him as our 'boss' and 'supervisor' ~ but that his new title (as decided by the management) was as our 'facilitator' and 'consultant'.

The politicians in Canberra are our servants. They are not our masters. They are civil servants elected to parliament for the purpose of representing the wishes of the people.



Old Codger wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

and yoy cannot have a referendum every time a decision comes up. You would have chaos.

Rabid nonsense.

On matters of vital importance to the people of Australia it's a no-brainer that a referendum should be held.

Both Hawke and Frazer later admitted that they didn't hold referendums on respective issues because they already knew the public would vote against the government.

In other words they robbed the Australian public of its democratic right to decide on issues that were of fundamental importance to the ordinary man in the street.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 10:26am:

We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers.

;D

Agreed!

We should all agree to beat our swords into plowshares and live in peace with our neighbours for evermore.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 10:39am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:26am: We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers. ;D Agreed! We should all agree to beat our swords into plowshares and live in peace with our neighbours for evermore.

Thank you.

Peace is possible through dialogue.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 10:11am:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 7:41am: I would prefer that didn't happen to Australia; we have security obligations to our neighbours, how about we at least try to meet them . We owe them FA. Our cities and suburbs already look like a foreign country due to decades of immigrating people from the Third World who bear no physical resemblance to us, and who identify first with their own ethnic community, and then to their Muslim religion. Australians are rapidly being turned into strangers in their own land due to 'commitments' to UN treaties NOT to discriminate, and to import people bolus-bolus from all parts of the world regardless of whether or not they are compatible with the Australian mainstream.

Please don't reply to my posts in future, that was too much stupid for one day.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 10:26am:

We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers.

Actually your point was pointless

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:39am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:26am: We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers. ;D Agreed! We should all agree to beat our swords into plowshares and live in peace with our neighbours for evermore. Thank you. Peace is possible through dialogue.

And if that doesn't work, we can always beat our plowshares into swords ... and use BigOl64 as a Human Shield as we advance upon the enemy.  :P

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 10:48pm: Do you really want to aim a nuclear weapon at that waste of time of a country? It would be a waste of nuclear weapon. Except, of course, the rulers of this dark patch on the face of nighttime planet Earth have nuclear missile capability already installed and partly funded by Western Foreign Aid ...

Really, Herbie?  You of course have evidence to back that assertion?  Oh, sorry, that's right this is Herbie who never presents any evidence...   ::)


Quote:

This is why we need a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a missile delivery system aboard that could position itself off the South Korean coast for the purpose of intercepting and destroying any missiles sent our way by the psychopaths who live in La La Land above the 38th parallel...

Aircraft carriers rarely carry much in the way of missile systems (unless they're Russian  ;) ).  They rely upon other ships, escorting them which are part of their task force, Herbie to provide protect against ballistic missile threats.

As for the DPRK wasting missiles on Australia, I cannot imagine why they'd bother.  Their missiles will be aimed for where they will be most effective, and in the following order of priority - ROK, Japan and then the USA.   The handful they have, won't be fired towards a country which is only a remote threat to their own.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

These had absolutely nothing to do with us. None of these foreign bun-fights posed the slightest threat to Australia's security and our continuing success as a First World nation in a sea of Third World warlordships.

Actually all were considered threats to our interests, Herbie.  Malaya because of the fear of Communist expansion and of course we had made a commitment to the Imperial Far East Strategic Reserve which was stationed in Malaya.  Borneo, you have forgotten was part of Konfrontasi and we had a commitment under the Five Power Defence Agreement to protect Malaysia.   We also shared a common land border at the time with Indonesia and were concerned about the possibility of Indonesian infiltration across it, in PNG.   East Timor is only 200 Nautical Miles from Darwin.  We had a sentimental attachment to that nation from joint interests and conflict in WWII.  Failure to intervene would have allow Indonesian violence to continue and intensify, which would have strangled the East Timorese liberation movement in it's cradle, with the possibility of creating a flood of refugees arriving on our shores fleeing political persecution there.  So, despite your opinion, it is obvious they definitely had something to do with us.


Quote:

So-called 'commitments' to the UN have never been ratified by the Australian people through a referendum, and therefore they lack legitimacy and are null and void so far as the bulk of the Australian public is concerned.

Nations do not put such matters of foreign policy to popular votes, Herbie.  If nothing else, often the need for speedy decision making and physical movement of forces to these trouble spots preclude it, if nothing else.  We are signatories of the San Francisco Treaty which created the UN (in fact we were one of the key framers of it).  We are committed to the principles and activities of Collective Defence, Herbie.  We could not shirk such matters lightly and not expect repercussions.


Quote:

Every last 'commitment' signed by our politicians with the UN are agreements in which Australia is never the beneficiary, but always the benefactor.

Except in the matter of defence, Herbie.  You do understand what the UN was created for, originally?    ::)


Quote:

Endless Foreign Aid, and a 'commitment' to populate our suburbs with people who are unassimilable for the reason that Islam commands primary loyalty and is intolerant of its congregation marrying outsiders who refuse to convert.

You mean like the Jews or even the Masons?  Gasp!  Who would have believed it, Herbie?

The other matters you've mentioned have little to do with the UN but are matters of domestic policies, created by the Australian Government for the betterment of the Australian Nation.  Policies which I note, you have been a beneficiary of, Herbie.  Without our liberal, generous Immigration policies, you'd have spent your life back home in the UK...   ::)


Quote:

Under any other PM the result would have been precisely the same. Our sending troops has always been to keep up our payments for US protection should Australia ever come under threat from our northern neighbours.

And there is a problem with that, how, exactly, Herbie?   You, yourself admit that this what we are expected to pay to ensure our protection from possible threat.   It is a cheap price to pay.  We have had more casualties in Afghanistan from sporting injuries than what the Taliban have managed to do.  Our military forces lose more men and women to motor vehicle accidents than we've lost in Afghanistan.


Quote:

The decision to mount a military invasion of Afghanistan proved to be yet another pratfall that made the Americans look like incompetent fools ~ and us with them. Ten years after the invasion, and Osama bin Laden was still at large and giving instructions via his satellite phone. Yet another epic fail by the Yanks and their utterly pathetic intelligence services.

You mean the same intelligence services that actually found him in the end, Herbie?

I've pointed out why the US fumbled the ball over bin Laden and Afghanistan.  You'll get no argument from me about that.   If they had concentrated their effort there, instead of diverting it to needlessly attack Saddam Hussein, "'cause he tried to kill my daddy!"  The affair may well have been over and done with by now.   However, the US is not the one solely responsible, Herbie.  NATO must bear some of the blame as well.


Quote:

Any troops sent overseas for military adventures should be strictly on a volunteer basis.

They generally have been, Herbie.  Only in WWII and Vietnam have we sent conscripted troops overseas.  The first was because of perceived existential threat, the second because of lack of volunteers in a period of full employment.   The first united the nation, the second divided it, so it's really a bit of a mixed bag on which to make a judgement.   ::)

Old Codger wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

Herbert, "Any troops sent overseas for military adventures should be strictly on a volunteer basis." ANY person who signs up now is a VOLUNTEER for service as required.  His application is not accepted otherwise.  We do NOT have Conscription!    Our grandchildren certainly understood that. And we do not have referendums for all the decisions made by our ELECTED representatives in Canberra.  They are charged with running the country,  and yoy cannot have a referendum every time a decision comes up. You would have chaos. OC

Herbie is on record with often having problems with the concepts of representative democracy, even of democracy itself when it produces decisions he disagrees with, OC.  Just ignore him, as HB keeps pointing out, he's a master troll.   ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:43am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:39am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:26am: We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers. ;D Agreed! We should all agree to beat our swords into plowshares and live in peace with our neighbours for evermore. Thank you. Peace is possible through dialogue. And if that doesn't work, we can always beat our plowshares into swords ... and use BigOl64 as a Human Shield as we advance upon the enemy.  :P

Or we could just have a stock pile of nuclear weapons as a deterrent and employ a couple dudes to turn a key if need be.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

Thank you. Peace is possible through dialogue.

Or

---

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:43am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:39am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:26am: We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers. ;D Agreed! We should all agree to beat our swords into plowshares and live in peace with our neighbours for evermore. Thank you. Peace is possible through dialogue. And if that doesn't work, we can always beat our plowshares into swords ... and use BigOl64 as a Human Shield as we advance upon the enemy.  :P

BigOl is an old boozer from the RSL.

Don't listen to anything he says.  :)

I have a photo of that exact image from an A10 at the PIMA Air Museum in Tucson AZ.

At Davis-Monthan,  (across the road) the tour bus guide handed us a 'Depleted Uranium' 30mm armour piercing round to 'inspect'.

HEAVY!



OC

Lucas The Innkeeper wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:55am:

Or we could just have a stock pile of nuclear weapons as a deterrent and employ a couple dudes to turn a key if need be.

And pray tell, where would we get such nuclear weapons?  They don't get put on sale, you realise?   We would have to develop our own and that would mean we would be required to abrogate several major international treaties which we are a party to, which would do what to our stance on trying to reduce threats to Australia, particularly from our immediate region?

Further, as we now lack the required number of nuclear engineers to create a nuclear programme we would need to train and graduate them, which would require a minimum of 10-15 years.  We would also need to create a nuclear industry, which would require a further 10-15 years (there could be some overlap there, I admit).  This would include nuclear enrichment and as we have seen with Iran and before that, the DPRK, Pakistan and even South Africa, the world takes unkindly to nations trying to become new members of the Nuclear Club.

Then we would need to develop a means of delivering them.  As you've alluding to the use of Ballistic Missiles with your command about "turning keys" we'd need to develop a whole Ballistic Missile programme as well, as Ballistic Missile technology is not available for purchase and the world takes a very dim view of those nations which attempt to do so (and the nations that sell it) as the DPRK and Iran have discovered.

So, we would need to develop several new, major industrial bases to create these nuclear weapons.  This in turn would skew our national and defence budgets considerably, make us an outlaw Pariah State and could provoke an arms race in our region.   The costs IMHO outweigh any benefit in acquiring a weapon which could really and morally only be used as those of last resort.

Despite what you believe, "simply turning a key" is not what is required to create and maintain nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  This has been explained here already, if you had bothered to do a search.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Lucas The Innkeeper wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 1:55am: Or we could just have a stock pile of nuclear weapons as a deterrent and employ a couple dudes to turn a key if need be. And pray tell, where would we get such nuclear weapons?  They don't get put on sale, you realise?   We would have to develop our own and that would mean we would be required to abrogate several major international treaties which we are a party to, which would do what to our stance on trying to reduce threats to Australia, particularly from our immediate region? Further, as we now lack the required number of nuclear engineers to create a nuclear programme we would need to train and graduate them, which would require a minimum of 10-15 years.  We would also need to create a nuclear industry, which would require a further 10-15 years (there could be some overlap there, I admit).  This would include nuclear enrichment and as we have seen with Iran and before that, the DPRK, Pakistan and even South Africa, the world takes unkindly to nations trying to become new members of the Nuclear Club. Then we would need to develop a means of delivering them.  As you've alluding to the use of Ballistic Missiles with your command about "turning keys" we'd need to develop a whole Ballistic Missile programme as well, as Ballistic Missile technology is not available for purchase and the world takes a very dim view of those nations which attempt to do so (and the nations that sell it) as the DPRK and Iran have discovered. So, we would need to develop several new, major industrial bases to create these nuclear weapons.  This in turn would skew our national and defence budgets considerably, make us an outlaw Pariah State and could provoke an arms race in our region.   The costs IMHO outweigh any benefit in acquiring a weapon which could really and morally only be used as those of last resort. Despite what you believe, "simply turning a key" is not what is required to create and maintain nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  This has been explained here already, if you had bothered to do a search.    ::)

No shiet Sherlock. I gave you more credit to know what I was talking about than you deserved clearly. I'll spell it out for you next time.

We could store the bombs in Lygon Street,  Carlton!


OC

It's not 'rightwing' to want to defend your society against the negative aspects of immigrant multiculturalism.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:59am:

BigOl is an old boozer from the RSL. Don't listen to anything he says.  :)

It is so sad to see you resort to pathetic ad hominum attacks. You are a pathetic little man, best you post on the secret women's business and discuss your brilliant peace plan with them.  ;D

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

It's not 'rightwing' to want to defend your society against the negative aspects of immigrant multiculturalism.

No, it's just Xenophobic, Herbie.  How about we keep this forum for defence matters and you can spout all the racism/bigotry/Xenophobia you like in the other forums.   ::)

Lucas The Innkeeper wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

No shiet Sherlock. I gave you more credit to know what I was talking about than you deserved clearly. I'll spell it out for you next time.

Well, I'll just leave you to your pointless ad hominem then, shall I?   ::)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:59am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 11:59am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:43am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:39am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:26am: We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers. ;D Agreed! We should all agree to beat our swords into plowshares and live in peace with our neighbours for evermore. Thank you. Peace is possible through dialogue. And if that doesn't work, we can always beat our plowshares into swords ... and use BigOl64 as a Human Shield as we advance upon the enemy.  :P BigOl is an old boozer from the RSL. Don't listen to anything he says.  :)

http://img.naij.com/n/world/08/c/adam-gray_same_bar.jpg

The bloke in the pic above is possibly an ex 19 year old vet from the Kokoda Track. Or maybe Milne Bay or even Tobruk.

My FiL had his 37th birthday in Tobruk!

Many on this forum would have no idea what that means.


OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

The bloke in the pic above is possibly an ex 19 year old vet from the Kokoda Track. Or maybe Milne Bay or even Tobruk. My FiL had his 37th birthday in Tobruk! Many on this forum would have no idea what that means.OC

There's no need to sound so superior about it.

Some of us wear our scars in silence.

bump

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 3:18pm: The bloke in the pic above is possibly an ex 19 year old vet from the Kokoda Track. Or maybe Milne Bay or even Tobruk. My FiL had his 37th birthday in Tobruk! Many on this forum would have no idea what that means.OC There's no need to sound so superior about it. Some of us wear our scars in silence.

Scars dishonourably received, in your case, Herbie!   By your own admission, you've never contributed a single day back to the society you live amongst.  Never even volunteered one, let alone worn a uniform and taken up a weapon and helped defend your adopted land!   ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

[ http://img.naij.com/n/world/08/c/adam-gray_same_bar.jpg

That old bloke in the photo will always be a better person than you and bobby, and someone I would be proud to have a beer with.

Ya pair of losers. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 3:18pm: The bloke in the pic above is possibly an ex 19 year old vet from the Kokoda Track. Or maybe Milne Bay or even Tobruk. My FiL had his 37th birthday in Tobruk! Many on this forum would have no idea what that means.OC There's no need to sound so superior about it. Some of us wear our scars in silence.

Fvcken what?


I think you may be responding to the wrong post, that didn't make any sense at all.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

Scars dishonourably received, in your case, Herbie!   By your own admission, you've never contributed a single day back to the society you live amongst.  Never even volunteered one, let alone worn a uniform and taken up a weapon and helped defend your adopted land!   ::)

Modesty has always forbidden me to boast about my many achievements both mundane and spiritual. I prefer to remain the quintessential 'Quiet Achiever'. In certain hallowed places my name is mentioned in respectful whispers, with awed recitings of my many heroic deeds.

But enough of me.

Let's move on, Brian.

How's the weather where you are?  8-)

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Fvcken what? I think you may be responding to the wrong post, that doidn't make any sense at all.

I repeat ~ The Old C shouldn't try to make cheap capital out of a relative's time in the military.

The factory workers of Australia may not be a glamorous lot, but they spend the best years of their life on production lines producing an export market that keeps this country 'First World'.

Not all Australia's 'heroes' wear a military uniform.

   Are you a WW2 vet?  Or Korea?

Old Codger wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

Are you a WW2 vet?  Or Korea?

Sorry. Privileged information.

I know, you were in the SAS!

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 3:34pm: There's no need to sound so superior about it. Some of us wear our scars in silence. Scars dishonourably received, in your case, Herbie!   By your own admission, you've never contributed a single day back to the society you live amongst.  Never even volunteered one, let alone worn a uniform and taken up a weapon and helped defend your adopted land!   ::)

Herb sounds like another loudmouthed  keyboard war hero.


These dickheads always get caught out, professing tales of glories past, that only happened in their own minds.

Here's a few of his 'mates'.  :)


http://www.anzmi.net/

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 3:51pm: Scars dishonourably received, in your case, Herbie!   By your own admission, you've never contributed a single day back to the society you live amongst.  Never even volunteered one, let alone worn a uniform and taken up a weapon and helped defend your adopted land!   ::) Modesty has always forbidden me to boast about my many achievements both mundane and spiritual. I prefer to remain the quintessential 'Quiet Achiever'. In certain hallowed places my name is mentioned in respectful whispers, with awed recitings of my many heroic deeds. But enough of me. Let's move on, Brian. How's the weather where you are?  8-)

Fine.  No fires.   Herbie, we both know you've admitted in the past that you have never contributed anything to your adopted society beyond what you've paid in taxes.   The only fight you've been a veteran of was in your dorm at your boarding school in the UK!   ;D

Old Codger wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

I know, you were in the SAS!

Shush. Spies are everywhere.  8-)

Oh, Sensei!  You have laid perfect baits once again!  They are fresh and sweet and attract new fish to your hooks every time!  Foolish fish who believe every word you type!  Truly you are a Master Troll!  You are irrepressible!   :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

veteran of was in your dorm at your boarding school in the UK Albury NSW


Fixed!   Fond and funny memories!


OC

blup

blip

blop

Old Codger wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 2:42pm:

veteran of was in your dorm at your boarding school in the UK Albury NSW Fixed!   Fond and funny memories! OC

Please be patient while I decode this cryptic message with my copy of the Enigma Machine.  8-)

Probably best to leave it alone, though my school was modeled on the English 'cold showers' and basic food, prefects with canes, "6 of the best",  and so on.

like I said, fond memories.

Yours was Cheam perhaps?

Old Codger wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 3:16pm:

Probably best to leave it alone, though my school was modeled on the English 'cold showers' and basic food, prefects with canes, "6 of the best",  and so on. like I said, fond memories. Yours was Cheam perhaps?

Good Lord, no! Nothing so vulgar and low rent.

Put it this way .. I used to chat with Prince Zaid of Jordan when his body guards weren't around.  8-)

You're privileged to have me here, gracing this board.  :P

Were you expelled?

Old Codger wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 5:18pm:

Were you expelled?

Unfortunately, no.

The one who was eventually 'expelled' was the headmaster himself. He was just too cane-happy with us boys. Way over the top.

I think he had a paedophile interest in caning us boys in the privacy of his study.

A delegation of officials came over from London and removed him ~ even though he financially owned the school out of his own pocket.

I'm all for caning for bad behaviour, but the list of possible infringements was ridiculous.

I never got 6 of the best, my worst was 4 but that hurt enough.  I wore the royal purple for a week or so after that.

I deserved every one I got, it was a silly little game of ours to see who could generate the most "cuts".

All very 'British' we were, Presbyterian actually.


OC

____ ----  We would kneel on this foot-rest (the broken line here) ~ and

then, crossing our arms in front of our forehead we would rest our head on an armchair that was lower than the foot-rest.

This had the effect of stretching our arse and the back of our thighs tight as a drum-skin.

I mostly got 3 strokes only about twice a month for several years. Sometimes it was 4. He was a big man with hands the size of baseball mitts.

The worst I got was 8 strokes for being seen to have a cup of tea in one of the local town's cafes. I was 17 at the time.

And no ~ I don't think I deserved ANY of the canings I got. Same with most of the other kids.

We got the cane from a system of collecting 'X's (crosses). As you went through your week, teachers, prefects, and monitors gave you 'a cross' for some perceived infringement of the rules. These were entered into a Cross Book in the Headboy's study. At the end of each week your Xs were totalled up ~ and you got so many strokes of the cane depending on how many Xs you had accumulated.

By far the worst aspect of this caning system was the anticipation of a painful caning awaiting you in the headmaster's study after tea on Fridays. This had a numbing effect on one's ability to learn anything.

Sometimes, for days before the Friday you felt like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights. Frozen and petrified. Your ability to concentrate on the lessons was temporarily suspended. Great jolts of adrenalin fear would shoot through your body every time you remembered the encounter you were due to have with the Godlike headmaster on the Friday after tea.

our Head Master was deeply respected and was dubbed "the boss" but was more a father figure. 

He NEVER used the cane,  but the masters did and sometimes the prefects, but they were just a light warning of what may be to come for the slow learners.  I think 6 may have been the legal limit in NSW in those days, banned now!

Sport was compulsory , rain,  hail, or shine, and usually in our own time.   I lOVED cricket, but was half a second too slow in my reflexes and never made it.

OC

To my headmaster's credit he only allowed the House Masters to do a little caning ~ which they did only very rarely. Not even the headboy was allowed to cane.

My headmaster was not hated, but was deeply feared. 

Sport was compulsory. Long 10 mile cross-country running on Saturday afternoons was a specialty. Snow and sleet, slashing rain and gale-force winds would motivate us to finish the course as soon as possible.

It was rugby ~ never soccer. Soccer was for the working-classes. I once had to be sent off the field because my fingers had frozen so I couldn't ball my hands into fists. 

*****

It was always "Sir" ~ never Mister so-and-so. The boys were always addressed by the masters (never 'teachers') by their surnames.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:26am: We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers. Actually your point was pointless

My point is that you're a war monger.

"My point is that you're a war monger."


you left out 'capitalist',  and you left out 'fascist'.


OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 2:57pm:

"My point is that you're a war monger." you left out 'capitalist',  and you left out 'fascist'. OC

OK -

BigOl is a capitalist, fascist, war monger.

You left out 'blood sucker'


...and 'running dog'

...and



OC

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 2:54pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 11:24am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 10:26am: We don't need a large defense force if we organize an arms reduction treaty with our neighbours. Why has my point been lost in this thread? You all sound like war mongers. Actually your point was pointless My point is that you're a war monger.

Just because someone serves in Australia's defence forces doesn't make them a "war monger" usually quite the opposite.

The worst kind of hypocrite is the gutless wonders that sit with the women and children denegrateing those who serve and protect, throwing out mindless insults thinking that no-one will notice their cowardice.

Booby that is you, and it makes you look pathetic

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 2:59pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:57pm: "My point is that you're a war monger." you left out 'capitalist',  and you left out 'fascist'. OC OK - BigOl is a capitalist, fascist, war monger.

Have you read at history book, we are all war mongers.

Also have your heard this before, Si vis pacem, para bellum , it means if you want peace prepare for war

Pantheon wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:59pm: Old Codger wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:57pm: "My point is that you're a war monger." you left out 'capitalist',  and you left out 'fascist'. OC OK - BigOl is a capitalist, fascist, war monger. Have you read at history book, we are all war mongers. Also have your heard this before, Si vis pacem, para bellum , it means if you want peace prepare for war

My argument is that we should have an arms reduction treaty
with all our neighbors & if not we should increase our military spending.

That's the deal - but we have to try for a treaty first.
At least it makes us look honest.

Pantheon wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Also have your heard this before, Si vis pacem, para bellum , it means if you want peace prepare for war

Trust in God ~ but keep your gunpowder dry.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 3:55pm:

Old Codger wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 3:16pm: Probably best to leave it alone, though my school was modeled on the English 'cold showers' and basic food, prefects with canes, "6 of the best",  and so on. like I said, fond memories. Yours was Cheam perhaps? Good Lord, no! Nothing so vulgar and low rent. Put it this way .. I used to chat with Prince Zaid of Jordan when his body guards weren't around.  8-) You're privileged to have me here, gracing this board.  :P

Mmm, interesting, Herbie.

Now, Prince Zaid of Jordan is aged 49.  I believe you've mentioned before that you're in your late 60s.  That is quite an age difference and somehow I doubt you were at school at the same time, unless of course you've been telling porky-pies about your age?   You devil!   ;)

Prince Zaid attended Reed's School, Cobham, Surrey, in the UK.  Those who attended Reed's School are known as "Old Reedonians".   Reed's School was an orphanage originally.

So, which house did you belong to?  Blathwayt, Bristowe, Capel or Mullens?   Do you still get your copy of The Reeder?  ;D

Pantheon wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:59pm: Old Codger wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:57pm: "My point is that you're a war monger." you left out 'capitalist',  and you left out 'fascist'. OC OK - BigOl is a capitalist, fascist, war monger. Have you read at history book, we are all war mongers. Also have your heard this before, Si vis pacem, para bellum , it means if you want peace prepare for war

Yes.  However as has been pointed out by Gwynne Dyer in his book, "War", what it invariably results in instead is bellum si vis para bellum.  If you want peace, you prepare for it, not war.   

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:23pm:

Pantheon wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:48pm: Also have your heard this before, Si vis pacem, para bellum , it means if you want peace prepare for war Trust in God ~ but keep your gunpowder dry.

I prefer Captain Starlight's motto, Доверяй, но проверяй (trust, but verify).  Interestingly favoured by both Ronald Reagan and Felix Dzerzhinsky, found of the Cheka.