Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29^th, 2019 at 6:41pm:


You really do live in a different reality, don't you, Hammer?

China would not "obliterate" us.  Why would they bother?  They would need us as slaves, now wouldn't they?

In reality, China lacks the need to attack Australia.   Lebensraum?  Australia lacks the soils to support a large population.  Our soils are the oldest on the planet and lack the nutrients to sustain massive cropping.  China is well aware of this fact, Hammer.   China is largely empty, despite your belief otherwise.  Most of it's population is on the coast and inland from there.  There is plenty of room further west, in Xinjiang and Tibet.   Why undertake a risky invasion when you already control large areas that are not being used?   Wars occur because of a need for a political outcome which cannot be achieved peacefully.  As Clausewitz put it, "War is but politics by a different means."   Sane politicians don't wage war unnecessarily.   China has no necessity to wage war on Australia.  None at all.  It also lacks the means.   It's navy is not equipped or trained for long range operations.   To build an island takes years and years and years, Hammer, it does not happen overnight.   You don't think we'd notice them building islands just to the north of our continent?   

You really need to stop with your Yellow Peril stories, Hammer.  Your Sinophobia is showing.   

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29^th, 2019 at 7:43pm:

China is developing close relationships throughout the Pacific. Fiji loves China. China is making moves Brian. PNG is another one. You are in denial.

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29^th, 2019 at 5:30pm:


You perform better when you are not sober Brian.

So the expression Anzac was bogus because the military personnel from Australia were British subjects?

The toadys in 'Australian' government on both sides still kneel in the presence of UK politicians and royalty. "The idea that there was such a thing as an Australian nationality as distinct from a British one was considered by the High Court of Australia in 1906 to be a "novel idea" to which it was "not disposed to give any countenance".

From Brian Ross's source.

Quote:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 29^th, 2019 at 7:48pm:


Closer relationships don't mean they are developing military bases, Hammer.  They are funding development, they are promoting Tourism and so on.  You need, as I have suggested to stop with your Yellow Peril stories.   

God you talk Turd Brian.v
But you have my vote - as this place needs somebody like you to reflect what Australian Military is all about. 

Spatchcock wrote on May 2^nd, 2019 at 12:46am:




Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You really crack me up, little chicken.  I went where I was sent by the Army.  I once was an infantry man until I cracked up my knee in a motorcycle accident.  Unlike you, I have never denigrated another service person's military life.   Little chicken, you are exactly what you claim you hate about Australian life so much.  Run along, back to your little kiddies' playground.  It is where you belong.   

Spatchcock wrote on May 2^nd, 2019 at 3:31pm:




Oh, dearie, dearie, me, just won't learn will you, little chicken?  You just keep on digging your hole deeper and deeper.   You remind me of a digger I knew on my IET Course as an Infantryman.   We were told to dig down to "Stage 3" defences.   Stage 3 is three foot six inches deep (ie approximately 1 metre).   He dug down to about 5 feet and was still going when he was told to stop by the platoon sergeant.   

Mr Hammer wrote on May 2^nd, 2019 at 5:04pm:


No, shelling was directed primarily at the Trenches and then the artillery positions and form up sites behind the lines.   Ammunition was precious, particularly in the early part of the war, so it wasn't wasted.   Yes, many, but not all WWI veterans came home damaged, Hammer.  Many in WWII were similar.  Some from Korea and some from Vietnam.   Not all soldiers were "REMFs".