# Would you go to war?



## JTLP (13 March 2009)

Imagine this...WW3...full scale war...not naming races or anything...just a question:

- Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well? The lucky country as people have put it...

- Would you, in this day and age, be willing to say goodbye to loved ones and know there is a chance you may not return?

- What would you do if conscription arose?

In all honesty, I think I would go. Not because I believe in the principles of war or what it achieves, but I have so much respect and admiration for the people who fought originally and were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for today's society...so to me...I would do the same so that future generations could enjoy the spoils of this beautiful country. 

Please discuss...


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



JTLP said:


> Imagine this...WW3...full scale war...not naming races or anything...just a question:
> 
> - Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well? The lucky country as people have put it...
> 
> ...




Yes


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



GumbyLearner said:


> Yes




But I will qualify that...

Even though I have had a great-grandfather who was in the 9th Division Rats of Tobruk..Are you talking about 'limited conscription' John Curtin policy or conscription regardless of where?


----------



## BentRod (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



> - Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well? The lucky country as people have put it...




Yes.

Without a second thought.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

WWIII?

why the need for soldiers? we'd all be nuked.

*gets out his old 'on the beach book'.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



Stormin_Norman said:


> WWIII?
> 
> why the need for soldiers? we'd all be nuked.
> 
> *gets out his old 'on the beach book'.




Yeah but surely you wouldn't nuke a beach head if the need to occupy it had no productive resources. That's just crazy!


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

Even better question!

Would you do everything you could to stop terrorists within Australia?
(Of course this means people from any continent on the earth)


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

To defend an ally, possibly.
To defend our immediate interests, probably.
To defend our territory, no question.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



kennas said:


> To defend an ally, possibly.
> To defend our immediate interests, probably.
> To defend our territory, no question.




Yes, Yes, Yes.

I agree Kennas.

I noticed that Joe Biden mentioned Australia 'might' be a target this week in the news. Deterrence is best IMHO!


----------



## doctorj (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



kennas said:


> To defend an ally, possibly.
> To defend our immediate interests, probably.
> To defend our territory, no question.



I'll be with you on the front line in the 3rd instance... the other two would depend on the circumstance.


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



GumbyLearner said:


> Yes, Yes, Yes.
> 
> I agree Kennas.
> 
> I noticed that Joe Biden mentioned Australia 'might' be a target this week in the news. Deterrence is best IMHO!



I probably wouldn't have a choice anyway if it was full scale war. I'd be called back.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



kennas said:


> I probably wouldn't have a choice anyway if it was full scale war. I'd be called back.




Yes you would.

Im sure there are plenty of guys who could assist you, even though formally could "informally" assist you too.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



GumbyLearner said:


> Even better question!
> 
> Would you do everything you could to stop terrorists within Australia?
> (Of course this means people from any continent on the earth)




id spend my country broke causing 'the terrorists' to hate it more.


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



doctorj said:


> I'll be with you on the front line in the 3rd instance... the other two would depend on the circumstance.



Yes, absolutely, and who. I'd put my hand up to assist a Kiwi under just about any circumstance though. Then, not sure. I'd probably assist a West Australian too.


----------



## doctorj (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



kennas said:


> Yes, absolutely, and who. I'd put my hand up to assist a Kiwi under just about any circumstance though. Then, not sure. I'd probably assist a West Australian too.



I'm guessing Tasmanians are out of luck then...


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



doctorj said:


> I'm guessing Tasmanians are out of luck then...



LOL.  Can't imagine our southern neighbours ever needing any help.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



doctorj said:


> I'm guessing Tasmanians are out of luck then...





Doubt it mate. How many tassies died in Nam?
Tassies even though they are not born on the mainland are still very much aussie! 

I know the Newfoundlanders who died at Gallopoli in their THOUSANDS may have an issue because they were not part of Canada back then.

But Oz has been a federation since 1901. Including Taz.

Taz has always fought with the government about state excise taxes and so they should, they are a small island after all. But as always a strong contributor to Canberra! TAX wise that is and a tiny population to boot! Rudd should provide Tasmanian business with some tax relief. IMHO

A lot to offer. A lot to offer. Sorry don't want to sound repititious


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

Bit of tongue in cheek there GL.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



JTLP said:


> - Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well? *The lucky country* as people have put it...
> 
> - Would you, in this day and age, be willing to say goodbye to loved ones and know there is a chance you may not return?
> 
> *I have so much respect and admiration for the people who fought originally and were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for today's society*...so to me...I would do the same so that future generations could enjoy the spoils of this beautiful country.




Yes I would help. I'd prefer a sniper's rifle but if I had to choose another a nice beefy machine gun would be nice. 

Regarding the lucky country comment, it is out of date and we aren't so lucky anymore. Who has good health care? Who can walk down the street without being attacked etc. Social engineering and a failure of governments selling our interests to the world and dragging our level of lifestyle down to the third world level etc. Public transportation that is inadequate and a dependence on cars to get anywhere. No we aren't lucky. 

I too respect the older guys who fought in the previous wars. I am sure they fought for something much different to what Australia is these days, though.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Yes I would help. I'd prefer a sniper's rifle but if I had to choose another a nice beefy machine gun would be nice.
> 
> Regarding the lucky country comment, it is out of date and we aren't so lucky anymore. Who has good health care? Who can walk down the street without being attacked etc. Social engineering and politicians selling our interests to the world and dragging our level of lifestyle down to the third world level etc. Public transportation that is inadequate and a dependence on cars to get anywhere. No we aren't lucky.
> 
> I too respect the older guys who fought in the previous wars. I am sure they fought for something much different to what Australia is these days, though.




You mean something like this!
"Oh no, I believe your wrong Mr. Chamberlain. But look what I've got"


----------



## prawn_86 (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

Well Im going to go against the trend and say No. It would be very hard to convince me to go and fight.


----------



## metric (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

i'll go if lachlan murdoch goes....


.


----------



## ojm (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

No doubt about it, if it was needed, I'd be there.

Although, I think I'd be on a support role, not a front line role (they wouldn't want engineers on the front line you'd think!).


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



prawn_86 said:


> Well Im going to go against the trend and say No. It would be very hard to convince me to go and fight.




There would be plenty of other things you could do to help the cause if you couldn't stomach turning the enemy into pink mist with your own hands.

there is a whole logistic side of the conflict that requires man power, think transport, catering, communications, medical, stores control, infomation gathering, 

plus plenty of community service needs if the place is getting bombed think fire fighters, collapsed building resucuers, food rationing etc etc.


But as for the original question I would answer yes, I would fight. if I couldn't fight I would be driving trucks to transport or smuggle what the boys needed,


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



ojm said:


> Although, I think I'd be on a support role, not a front line role (they wouldn't want engineers on the front line you'd think!).




check out this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_engineering

Are you kidding, Combat engineers are right on the front line. infact the engineer corp is 1 of only four army corps who actively fight the enemy not just in self defence, the other 3 corps are infantry, armor (tanks) and artillery, all other corps only fight in self defence.

Engineers are a vital on the front line, they help our own forces move, building bridges, roads airfeilds etc, they deny the enemy of movement by blowing up bridges, roads, constructing obsticles etc, and engineers also assist troops survive on the battle feild by building sheltor and defences such as bunkers.

Most SAS patrol groups in Afganistan have engineers embedded in them, I know of several engineers who have been wounded in battle in afaganistan.

An interesting point of history is that the first soldier to land in galipoli in WW1 was an army engineer. 

Those guys in the movies that you see running forward with the troops weighed down with kilos of explosives are engineers ready to blow up obsticles,


----------



## Awesomandy (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

In terms of war, then yes, I definitely would. However, given that I've been sitting at my desk for virtually all of my work life, I doubt I would be too much use in a combat situation. I guess I would be better at the organising, managing, or even strategy side of things.


----------



## Prospector (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*

Maybe you should ask whether mothers would be prepared to let their sons go!


----------



## sam76 (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



prawn_86 said:


> Well Im going to go against the trend and say No. It would be very hard to convince me to go and fight.




i guess someone has to be the profiteer, hey Prawn?


----------



## ojm (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



Tysonboss1 said:


> Are you kidding, Combat engineers are right on the front line. infact the engineer corp is 1 of only four army corps who actively fight the enemy not just in self defence, the other 3 corps are infantry, armor (tanks) and artillery, all other corps only fight in self defence.
> 
> Engineers are a vital on the front line, they help our own forces move, building bridges, roads airfeilds etc, they deny the enemy of movement by blowing up bridges, roads, constructing obsticles etc, and engineers also assist troops survive on the battle feild by building sheltor and defences such as bunkers.
> 
> ...




Probably depends what corp you are in as an engineer. I know my grandfather was no where near the front line as an engineer - was in secure areas/bases. And a good mate of mine's dad started as an engineer in the army (not anymore, more money elsewhere), and he says he wouldn't have been placed on the front lines - guessing he wouldn't have been a combat engineer. 

With explosives, and engineer isn't needed to use them. Demolitions people would. I think they have specialist explosives people.

And lots of the building you are talking about wouldn't take place on the front line. An engineer wouldn't be needed to blow a bridge up, the air force could take care of that a lot more easily.


----------



## Nyden (13 March 2009)

No, I would never go to war - nor would I die for any cause. The 'ownership' of countries is ever changing, so why should I stand in the way of history, and to a better point; why the heck would I die for it?

Better to die an old coward, than a young hero. There's nothing after this life, so I would opt to enjoy as much time as possible here!

Oh, and on a side note, I will pose the question of whether women would be conscripted as well? It's only fair, really. Women are 'liberated' now, they vote, have jobs, are free and independant - so why should they not be expected to face the same risks, and dangers as men during a war?


----------



## bunyip (13 March 2009)

The prospect of going to war is terrifying when you find yourself in that situation. 
I was called up for National Service when I was 20. Most of the nasho blokes were sent to Vietnam once they completed their two years of compulsory training, and I probably would have been too. It was possible to get out of it on the grounds of being a 'conscientious objector', but I wouldn't have gone down that road. I was willing to support my country by going to war, no question.
Thank God I failed the medical due to a recurring shoulder problem that originated when I dislocated my right shoulder in a pillow fight a few years earlier!
The army doctor failed me immediately when I told him about my shoulder - he didn't even bother to finish the rest of the medical examination. Not even any proof required...he simply took my word for it.
Two weeks later I got a letter from the army saying that I didn't meet their medical requirements. It was one of the happiest days of my life - a huge relief not to get drafted into the army afterall, and get sent over to the jungles of Vietnam to give someone the opportunity of trying to shoot my rear end off!
I can tell you, when you think you're going to war, as I thought until I failed that medical, it's a mighty scary thought. You don't know if you'll come back in a body bag, or as a cripple with an arm and a leg missing and half your face blown off, or what.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (13 March 2009)

i feel bad enough that my taxes pay for other professional killers to go to other countries and shoot them up, little own actually partaking in sanctioned murder myself.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



ojm said:


> With explosives, an engineer isn't needed to use them. Demolitions people would. I think they have specialist explosives people.
> 
> And lots of the building you are talking about wouldn't take place on the front line. An engineer wouldn't be needed to blow a bridge up, the air force could take care of that a lot more easily.




Combat engineers have been on the front line in every major conflict australia has every been involved in, I have seen a photo from veitnam of an army bulldozer with a 30cal machine gun mounted on it, because the engineers were building roads through areas rife with viet cong assualt groups. 

It takes a good understanding of engineering to conduct demolitions efficiantly and quickly with limited resources. especially when those resources are limited by what you can carry on the back of maybe 6 men.

I could easily see civil engineers being conscripted to lead groups of sappers ( a sapper is what a private in the engineer corp is called) to carry out taskes

In a full on war situation Air power will not be wasted on tasks that can be conducted by ground forces.

What do you mean the building I am talking about wouldn't be on the front line, where else are the feild defences going to be, If we need to move trucks and tanks engineers build the bridges, roads to move them.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



ojm said:


> I think they have specialist explosives people.




yes, they are called combat engineers. I was one.


----------



## gfresh (13 March 2009)

No.. While it may seem brave to go to war and save the country, at the end of the day, it may be the honorable thing, but you are still could well be dead. There is no honour in being dead to me. 

If an enemy was amongst the streets of Australia, and we were *directly* defending our country from attack, then maybe I could feel differently as it may be a matter of life and death anyhow.  

Would it be harder to have a conscription these days with the information flow these days? People are a lot more educated, have seen a lot more of what goes on in war, know the horror involved, seen the movies even which do not show it in an honorable light. I am not sure as many would be willing to sign up when information flows so quickly, compared to say the World Wars, where it could take days, even weeks to get news from the other side of the world, and stories were only recounted via the written word or very censored film reels.


----------



## Trevor_S (13 March 2009)

JTLP said:


> Imagine this...WW3...full scale war...not naming races or anything...just a question:
> 
> - Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well?




No.  I feel no more affinity to the guy that lives next door to me, then to the guy living across the ocean from me, their lives are held in equal esteem in my eyes.  

Unfortunately I am in the minority, humans love to hurt and kill each other to show how right they are and I can only hope I am brave enough to stand by my convictions if the time arises and not pick up the metaphorical sword.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 March 2009)

gfresh said:


> If an enemy was amongst the streets of Australia, and we were *directly* defending our country from attack, then maybe I could feel differently as it may be a matter of life and death anyhow.
> 
> .




It would seem unwise to wait for the enemy to have landed a sizeable invasion force with an established control centre with logistics and supply chains, before you would think to act.

by the time the enemy troops are conducting patrols on our streets the war is over.


----------



## noirua (13 March 2009)

I always fancied carrying the flag into battle.  If it gets a bit rough I could quickly gallop out of there, on a horse of course, to save the flag and honour of Australia.


----------



## nunthewiser (13 March 2009)

YES 

i would gladly fight to defend my way of life

everyone wants everything for nothing these days and thats great but just dont whine to me if one day you under another countrys not so free and easy living ways because you were too comfortable in your armchair to get off ya ass to fight to keep the great lifestyle we have


----------



## sting (13 March 2009)

I would not have a choice but I wouldnt want to go as a 9 mile sniper tho(My Original Posting) gimme a AW50F any day. I often get told those who can do whose who can't teach. Give me the chance to prove that even tho I am on the other side of 40 my marksmanship is as good as it ever was. Me last qualify was a spread of 53mm.

But seriously anyone who would not stand up to defend his country does not deserve to live here. Ok I accept those who would not put their hand up to go to the sandpit and play but when it comes to the crunch and the enemy have taken PNG and waiting to cross over I doubt very few would not be in the mindset to "Pick up a weapon and follow me".

And TysonBoss you have left out one highly regarded group of CE's. The Tunnel rats of Nam, I served under one of these blokes in the early 80's. I still see him and concider him a mate but even to this day he doesn't talk a lot about his experiences over there.


----------



## Trevor_S (13 March 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> by the time the enemy troops are conducting patrols on our streets the war is over.




You George W Bush ? Mission accomplished  !


----------



## MrBurns (13 March 2009)

In ideal circumstances  - yes.

But they are never ideal are they , look at Vietnam for instance.

No -  to going to war OS but if we're even invaded of course.

With the weapons around today there's hardly a need for foot soldiers, just nuke the bastards.


----------



## sting (13 March 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> It would seem unwise to wait for the enemy to have landed a sizeable invasion force with an established control centre with logistics and supply chains, before you would think to act.
> 
> by the time the enemy troops are conducting patrols on our streets the war is over.




I wonder if Kev would dust off the old Brisbane Line file considering it is his home town. With today's capabilities we would be hard pressed to defend Tasmania against an all out invasion. Once an invasion force was capable and able to land a force of sufficent size anyone north of the qld border should stick there head between thier legs and kiss their **** goodbye

UBIQUE


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 March 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> You George W Bush ? Mission accomplished  !




Well it's not mission accomplished, But once the enemy is established them selves enough that they feel comfortable occupying the streets, then it is a sign that they have a large fighting force, with all the nessasary logistical streams to sustain long term operations.

and it would probally mean we have lost a massive amount of our fighting force and logistical streams. 

You brought up a good example, when george bush said "mission accomplished", to large extent americans had destroyed the conventional army.

The USA had destroyed the Iraq Airforce and dominanted the sky, And the was no Tanks, Artillery or soldiers left to fight a conventional battle because they had all fled or been killed or captured.

Once the defence force is in such a state of devastation all that was left was groups of insurgents operating in nuisance attacks, But the insurgents have no hope of mounting a large enough resistance to drive the USA out.

So the insurgents can resist the occupation, but the main chance of winning the "War" and driving out the enemy quickly is lost.


----------



## Stan 101 (13 March 2009)

On the OP's post, I'd rather die here myself than go to a foreign country to kill another on their own soil. I'd certainly take up arms if my country of residence was being invaded.
 In a situation such as WW2 where ocupation of my country of residence was on the warmonger's agenda, I would strongly consider leaving home to help curb their advancement.

Cheers,


----------



## IFocus (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



Tysonboss1 said:


> check out this link
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_engineering
> 
> ...




My Grandfather was an engineer in WW1 in France, tough gig, Dad related how the engineers were the ones to clear the area of ordnance, lay planking and cut through the barb wire for the troops to follow sounded dangerous to me.

Unfortunately never met my Grandfather he died early 50's, he was the only survivor out of 15 others after a shell landed in their trench, he lost a leg to gangrene laying around in a field hospital waiting for treatment. 

Funny thing was he never received a cent for the wounds or disability.  

Would I go to war? If the mainland was threaten I guess I wouldn't have a choice.

My brother in law went to Vietnam I have seen the damage to him and his mates, I didn't think it was worth it.


----------



## tigerboi (13 March 2009)

*Re:without question i would defend my country*

In the blink of an eye i would stand up to defend my country

as for cowards in the face of enemy remember in time of war you dont even get a kangaroo court.

you get dealt with summarily...one to the back of the head...


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (13 March 2009)

Hmm interesting question.

My Great Uncle died at Gallipoli. (Artillery division)
My Great Grandfather was wounded in France but remained a Drill Sargeant here in Australia until the war ended.

My Grandfather and his six brothers went to WWII and three of them returned. He also had a sister that joined as a nurse, got involved with Military Intelligence where her war records were sealed for six months and afterwards promptly married an American Major (Doctor) and returned with him to California when the war ended.

I have to say that they probably don't want my soft podgy slightly over the hill body - but if they did and there was fighting on our soil or the definate possibility of fighting on our soil, I'd join up. 

Sir O


----------



## beerwm (13 March 2009)

If we were being liberated from the Rudd Regime, i might be tempted to defect.


----------



## metric (13 March 2009)

air show in melbourne recruiting air force cadets.......17 navy destroyers in sydney recruiting sailors....

this topic may require more thought that some here realise...

completion dates of public works , havent changed....

what were the completion dates of the sydney harbour bridge and the story bridge in brisbane?

.


----------



## Glen48 (13 March 2009)

What IF the economy tanks and we are down and out then the Muslims move in with a heap of $$$$$$$$$$...what happend's then?


----------



## metric (13 March 2009)

Glen48 said:


> What IF the economy tanks and we are down and out then the Muslims move in with a heap of $$$$$$$$$$...what happend's then?




lol. id be more worried about the cashed up capitalists....

.


----------



## nunthewiser (13 March 2009)

metric said:


> lol. id be more worried about the cashed up capitalists....
> 
> .




is a cashed up capatalist 

have no fear 

now cook me some eggs


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



prawn_86 said:


> Well Im going to go against the trend and say No. It would be very hard to convince me to go and fight.



What if other young Aussies were on a front line across Brissie prawn defending us southerners? I suppose it's hard to imagine, but that's part of my 'defend the territory no question' position.



Prospector said:


> Maybe you should ask whether mothers would be prepared to let their sons go!



There's some American Indian tribe whose tribal laws say only men can go to war, but it's only the women that choose to go. Nice one.



Nyden said:


> No, I would never go to war - nor would I die for any cause. The 'ownership' of countries is ever changing, so why should I stand in the way of history, and to a better point; why the heck would I die for it?



You don't have a fence up around your house and if the neighbours starting tossing handgrenades over you'd just lie back and think 'ah, the serenity!'


----------



## metric (13 March 2009)

Nyden said:


> No, I would never go to war - nor would I die for any cause. The 'ownership' of countries is ever changing, so why should I stand in the way of history, and to a better point; why the heck would I die for it?




good point. but im sure enough of the 'right fervor' will be whipped up to ensure you concience weighs heavily.

there'll be no more les darcys thank you....we're gonna make a profit from this war, and no peasant is gonna distract the rest of the peasants!!


.


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2009)

metric said:


> good point. but im sure enough of the 'right fervor' will be whipped up to ensure you concience weighs heavily.
> 
> there'll be no more les darcys thank you....we're gonna make a profit from this war, and no peasant is gonna distract the rest of the peasants!!
> 
> .



Damn I wish we had more like you in this country metric.


----------



## metric (13 March 2009)

kennas said:


> Damn I wish we had more like you in this country metric.




what? you mean people that think for themselves instead of parroting mainstream 'facts'?

or is it a compliment? lol


.


----------



## metric (13 March 2009)

kennas. have you actually read the story of les darcy? are you aware what was done to him? why they did it? whom the players were? and do you think anything has changed?


.


----------



## Conza88 (13 March 2009)

JTLP said:


> Imagine this...WW3...full scale war...not naming races or anything...just a question:
> 
> - Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well? The lucky country as people have put it...
> 
> ...




I'd fight to defend the nation but NOT the nation-state. I would fight to defend MY PROPERTY and those of my neighbors.

The war would have to be JUST. 

If it doesn't past muster as far as I'm concerned... The draft? 

The STATE does not OWN my body. I do. It is my property. The draft = tyranny. 

I will dodge or go to goal rather than fight a unjustified, immoral, pointless, destructive war. _Conscientious objector_ for sure.

Basically, why not let each citizen defend their own property, join malitia's etc?

I don't get why the US is so paranoid. Who on earth is going to attack them and try occupy? I wonder what would happen... say the Chinese try to take over the 5 Boroughs... (The Bronx etc.) Yeaaaah, lol... good luck


----------



## cashcow (13 March 2009)

Subject to the same qualifications as kennas, in a heartbeat.


----------



## Glen48 (13 March 2009)

I did time in Beerwar that was enough for me..My Farther told me he screwed a Jap in 44 .....shot him between the eyes


----------



## wabbit (13 March 2009)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> My Great Uncle died at Gallipoli. (Artillery division)
> My Great Grandfather was wounded in France but remained a Drill Sargeant here in Australia until the war ended.
> 
> My Grandfather and his six brothers went to WWII and three of them returned. He also had a sister that joined as a nurse, got involved with Military Intelligence where her war records were sealed for six months and afterwards promptly married an American Major (Doctor) and returned with him to California when the war ended.
> ...




Impressive family history....

What blog?



wabbit


----------



## Tysonboss1 (13 March 2009)

Conza88 said:


> Basically, why not let each citizen defend their own property, join malitia's etc?




because the invaders would roll through the suburbs one at a time and the defenders would have no chance of defending themselves against a professial pre-planned combined arms attack.

picture a city like sydney, if the defenders were spread right across the region, the defence would be spread so thinly that when a concentrated force of infantry and armour, backed by air support and artillery advance using skilled tactics they would roll through the suburbs like a hot knife through butter.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 March 2009)

Its not all glory and hey ho. Sorry to put a damper on it. War is hell.

gg


Suicide in the Trenches
(published in the Cambridge Magazine, 23 February 1918)
Siegfried Sassoon

I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.

In winter trenches, cowed and glum
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.


----------



## JTLP (14 March 2009)

Agree GG...

My question was raised merely as a last resort type stance. Like could people in this day fight? It seems to me that everyone is saying how selfish society is these days; driven only to make life better for themselves and not sparing a thought for their fellow man. That is why I begged the question...would people be willing to put aside THEMSELVES and their SELFISHNESS to help out their fellow man and keep Australia beautiful for future generations.

Nyden re: Women at war. Not trying to put you offside here but I believe women should really only be made to do medical stuff etc. The fact that women are not as physically strong as men is a standout point to me; coupled with the fact that when it came to the crunch I don't think (IMO and generic statement here) that women could actually go through with the required mental state to commit to war and its doings.

Prawn: You really couldn't fight? You really couldn't put yourself on the frontline so that future generations could enjoy the spoils that you have had?

Please note I am in no way glorifying war and am not saying that it is heroic...again...just a thought provoking question...


----------



## Sean K (14 March 2009)

metric said:


> kennas. have you actually read the story of les darcy? are you aware what was done to him? why they did it? whom the players were? and do you think anything has changed?
> .



 All I know is that he dodged conscription by moving to the States.


----------



## metric (14 March 2009)

kennas said:


> All I know is that he dodged conscription by moving to the States.




there was no conscription.....


----------



## bluelabel (14 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



kennas said:


> What if other young Aussies were on a front line across Brissie prawn defending us southerners? I suppose it's hard to imagine, but that's part of my 'defend the territory no question' position.




I agree with you on this point kennas.

I wouldnt ship out overseas but if the 'enemy' were entering port phillip bay, i'd be lobbing grenades for sure.

With the 'greater depression' (as in bigger than the great depression) or as the spinsters like to call it the 'GFC', in its formative years, WWIII is a genuine posibility in 7-10 years.

But is it going to be a north korean strike on the harbour bridge or a russian sub in port phillip bay or more to what one previous poster touced on, cashed up capitilists buying up assets.  I would be more concerend about that.  He who has the biggest wallet wins and right now, it isnt the 'good guys'.  (america, UK, australia, etc)

:bier:


----------



## Bafana (14 March 2009)

I would defend Australia.


----------



## Nyden (14 March 2009)

JTLP said:


> Agree GG...
> 
> 
> Nyden re: Women at war. Not trying to put you offside here but I believe women should really only be made to do medical stuff etc. The fact that women are not as physically strong as men is a standout point to me; coupled with the fact that when it came to the crunch I don't think (IMO and generic statement here) that women could actually go through with the required mental state to commit to war and its doings.




That's just sexist, and a generalization that no longer fits what a 'man' is in this day and age. Evolution may have originally set specific roles for specific genders, but society has re-defined those roles.

Not as physically strong? I know quite a few women that are quite strong, and extremely fit. Lack of mental state? Ah, yes; because I'm sure men have no issues with putting a bullet through the head of another man. I know I couldn't do it, and quite frankly; I'm too much of a latte-sipping metro sexual pretty-boy to ever survive out there :

Like I said, if women are strong enough in mind and body as to make it in the corporate world, and to have equal rights in all facets of life, then they must embrace equal responsibilities as well. It is simply unjust to have it any other way.

Kennas,

Well, as Talleyrand said "Treason is a matter of dates." I guess what I'm saying, is that if the war had progressed to the point of grenades being thrown into my house ... well, it's a pretty sure bet we've lost the war. I'd attempt to defect and join the enemy at that point  My life is far more important than way of life, and as I've repeatedly stated - patriotism is simply a form of brainwashing. However, for arguments sake - I would have never been in that position to start with. I'd be on the first plane out of here with a suitcase of cash in the event of war.


----------



## Sean K (14 March 2009)

Nyden said:


> Kennas,
> 
> Well, as Talleyrand said "Treason is a matter of dates." I guess what I'm saying, is that if the war had progressed to the point of grenades being thrown into my house ... well, it's a pretty sure bet we've lost the war. I'd attempt to defect and join the enemy at that point  My life is far more important than way of life, and as I've repeatedly stated - patriotism is simply a form of brainwashing. However, for arguments sake - I would have never been in that position to start with. I'd be on the first plane out of here with a suitcase of cash in the event of war.



Nyden, I haven't expressed my case very well obviously. The backyard thing was a metaphor for the country border. Obviously if we're ever attacked, you'll be long gone, so no grenades over the fence for you.


----------



## prawn_86 (14 March 2009)

kennas said:


> What if other young Aussies were on a front line across Brissie prawn defending us southerners? I suppose it's hard to imagine, but that's part of my 'defend the territory no question' position.




It is hard to imagine, but at this point i just cant visualise it as worth dying for.

Look at both WW, millions of people died, and then when its all over the countries go back to trading with each other etc. At this stage i would rather be in jail than some form of political pawn.

Thats not to say i dont admire our defence forces, i just disagree with the politics of a lot of it.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 March 2009)

Nyden and Prawn, 

I am sad to say, But if Australia was really under threat and every one was rallying to the cause, I mean even old men helping load trucks and sew camo netting, and tuckshop ladies were helping load magazines and rationing out ammo, And I saw you fleeing the scence, I would put two in your back myself.

I don't care if you don't want to fight, For every 1 soldier on the front line there are probally 5 other jobs that need to get done. By running away you are abandoning the guys who do need to fight. the least you can do is help support the logistics that are keeping the Bullets and Beans flowing to the front.


----------



## Conza88 (14 March 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> because the invaders would roll through the suburbs one at a time and the defenders would have no chance of defending themselves against a professial pre-planned combined arms attack.
> 
> picture a city like sydney, if the defenders were spread right across the region, the defence would be spread so thinly that when a concentrated force of infantry and armour, backed by air support and artillery advance using skilled tactics they would roll through the suburbs like a hot knife through butter.




They can organize collectively. There would be private defence agencies. If every citizen is armed and hostile, they're going to have ALOT of trouble occupying especially when they're fighting Australians. Everyone suddenly becomes an enemy, lol.

The Myth of National Defence by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

or The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Vedrun Vuk _(audio)_

Very interesting.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 March 2009)

Conza88 said:


> They can organize collectively. There would be private defence agencies. If every citizen is armed and hostile, they're going to have ALOT of trouble occupying especially when they're fighting Australians. Everyone suddenly becomes an enemy, lol.
> 
> The Myth of National Defence by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
> 
> ...




Offcourse if every citizen was "armed" then they can put up resitence, But my comment was in regards to someone saying it would be better if everyone just stayed in their own small area and defended it rather than uniting in one big push to drive out the attackers.

Picture a large pub filled with over a hundred normal aussies, suddenly 10 highly trained ninjas turned up an started attacking one group of aussie pub goers at a time, it might take them a while but these ninjas will easily work there way through the pub one table at a time bashing groups of 2 or 3 people, this is how an invader would work. the best option would be for the whole pub to unite and fight of the ninjas at once since they would out number them 10 to 1.

If you let the attackers choose when and where to fight, they will divide your forces and smash small groups one at a time with concentrated fire.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Offcourse if every citizen was "armed" then they can put up resitence, But my comment was in regards to someone saying it would be better if everyone just stayed in their own small area and defended it rather than uniting in one big push to drive out the attackers.
> 
> Picture a large pub filled with over a hundred normal aussies, suddenly 10 highly trained ninjas turned up an started attacking one group of aussie pub goers at a time, it might take them a while but these ninjas will easily work there way through the pub one table at a time bashing groups of 2 or 3 people, this is how an invader would work. the best option would be for the whole pub to unite and fight of the ninjas at once since they would out number them 10 to 1.
> 
> If you let the attackers choose when and where to fight, they will divide your forces and smash small groups one at a time with concentrated fire.




Mate that happens every weekend in Sydney and Melbourne pubs anyway.

gg


----------



## JTLP (14 March 2009)

Nyden said:


> That's just sexist, and a generalization that no longer fits what a 'man' is in this day and age. Evolution may have originally set specific roles for specific genders, but society has re-defined those roles.
> 
> Not as physically strong? I know quite a few women that are quite strong, and extremely fit. Lack of mental state? Ah, yes; because I'm sure men have no issues with putting a bullet through the head of another man. I know I couldn't do it, and quite frankly; I'm too much of a latte-sipping metro sexual pretty-boy to ever survive out there :
> 
> Like I said, if women are strong enough in mind and body as to make it in the corporate world, and to have equal rights in all facets of life, then they must embrace equal responsibilities as well. It is simply unjust to have it any other way.




Nyden, tell me honestly...most women wouldn't even be able to hold a candle to most mens physical capabilities. Of course it's a generalization...cause it's the truth. If women are so equal with men how come they can't run faster, jump higher, throw longer, lift more etc etc? Just the way it is sweetcheeks...and why I believe men should be on the frontline and most women couldn't handle it. AGAIN so you don't cut loose I know there are women out there who could destroy men at some things...but as a whole and on zi bell curve...Men > Women in physicality etc.

I didn't say men have a pre-determined gene etc in their brains to be able to pull the trigger...there was actually an interesting UK doco about whether people in today's society could actually go through with the act of shooting...results were surprising. It's just I believe men are more desensitized to violence and the acts of committing it; hence my conclusion that they again would be more suited to combat aspect of war. You would have to have a screw loose to actually want to maim another human...but when it comes to the crunch...if someone wants to take you down...survival of the fittest.


----------



## Nyden (14 March 2009)

JTLP said:


> Nyden, tell me honestly...most women wouldn't even be able to hold a candle to most mens physical capabilities. Of course it's a generalization...cause it's the truth. If women are so equal with men how come they can't run faster, jump higher, throw longer, lift more etc etc? Just the way it is sweetcheeks...and why I believe men should be on the frontline and most women couldn't handle it. AGAIN so you don't cut loose I know there are women out there who could destroy men at some things...but as a whole and on zi bell curve...Men > Women in physicality etc.
> 
> I didn't say men have a pre-determined gene etc in their brains to be able to pull the trigger...there was actually an interesting UK doco about whether people in today's society could actually go through with the act of shooting...results were surprising. It's just I believe men are more desensitized to violence and the acts of committing it; hence my conclusion that they again would be more suited to combat aspect of war. You would have to have a screw loose to actually want to maim another human...but when it comes to the crunch...if someone wants to take you down...survival of the fittest.




Ah, how true. Most of us men are just pure specimens of physical strength. Wait, what's the current obesity rate? Half of us blokes (excluding myself) are beer-bellied, diabetic, cardiovascular-patients-to-be; half of which probably can't even walk 1km, let alone run it. The reality is, back in the day of older wars - the roles of men, and women were greatly defined. Men simply got a lot more exercise doing more physical forms of work, but things have vastly changed now.

Well, by this logic - I should call up the army, and tell them that women simply aren't as good as men; and perhaps my taxes should be paying them less.

Desensitized? Oh, so that's why so many vets suffer from PTSD.


----------



## Buster (14 March 2009)

Hey Metric,



metric said:


> air show in melbourne recruiting air force cadets.......17 navy destroyers in sydney recruiting sailors....
> 
> this topic may require more thought that some here realise....




Lol.. Yes, Defence have seen an opportunity to ramp up the recruiting drive, but thats because the media are pumping every job loss for what they can.. Defence has had a hard time attracting quality for many years, now with all the economic doom and gloom the Forces may well recruit some talent in the 'hard times'..  They certainly don't forsee WW3 due to the GEC though.. 

Seventeen destroyers??  We've not go a single one.. We've got four very old Frigates that, despite horrendous amounts of cash over the last fifteen years spent on an 'upgrade', are absolutely useless.. nothing works.. and I mean nothing works..  

We also have six newer frigates that were built here, that were described in 'Janes Fighting Ships', the #1 authority on the world's navies, as the 'best informed target in the world'..  Ouch, that would inspire confidence for the troopers serving on them..  and it all goes downhill from there.. (don't mention the subs..)

Back on topic though, I'm really not sure of the intent of the OP.. Would you go to war [to fix the GEC?].. Invade China to _force_ them to buy our comoodities?  

Presumably the question is to protect our 'interests' and that of our allies,  which is exactly the role of our 'DEFENCE' (as opposed to Offence) Force..    

For those suggesting that mustering a 'Dad's Army' after an invasion would be too late, you'd have to wonder then why our Defence capability is limited (notwithstanding the personnel issues).  Many, many defence papers have been written on the likely 'invasion' of Australia, and the conclusion of most is that to sustain an invasion logistically is near on impossible given our distance (Isolation) from most in the world, and the vast naturally hostile environments required to be overcome once here..  Our Defence force is simply a deterrent..

I'd expect a 'ragtag' force thrown together upon invasion would certainly make life significantly more difficult for the would be 'invasion force'

Cheers,

Buster


----------



## Sean K (14 March 2009)

Nyden said:


> Ah, how true. Most of us men are just pure specimens of physical strength. Wait, what's the current obesity rate? Half of us blokes (excluding myself) are beer-bellied, diabetic, cardiovascular-patients-to-be; half of which probably can't even walk 1km, let alone run it.



And all women are beautiful amazonian tatiana like specimens who can leap tall buildings in a single bound?


----------



## Nyden (14 March 2009)

kennas said:


> And all women are beautiful amazonian tatiana like specimens who can leap tall buildings in a single bound?




No. My argument is simply one of equality. If women expect/receive equal rights in all facets of life, is it asking too much to share equal responsibilities in all facets as well? I see women as equal, treat them as equal - I don't place them at higher, nor lower value to myself. The notion of 'taking care' of women is archaic, and somewhat unfair. It's obviously still prevalent though ...


----------



## Conza88 (14 March 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Offcourse if every citizen was "armed" then they can put up resitence, But my comment was in regards to someone saying it would be better if everyone just stayed in their own small area and defended it rather than uniting in one big push to drive out the attackers.
> 
> Picture a large pub filled with over a hundred normal aussies, suddenly 10 highly trained ninjas turned up an started attacking one group of aussie pub goers at a time, it might take them a while but these ninjas will easily work there way through the pub one table at a time bashing groups of 2 or 3 people, this is how an invader would work. the best option would be for the whole pub to unite and fight of the ninjas at once since they would out number them 10 to 1.
> 
> If you let the attackers choose when and where to fight, they will divide your forces and smash small groups one at a time with concentrated fire.




But you have Private Defense organizations_ (Like Security Guards at a pub)_


----------



## Buster (14 March 2009)

Hey Tyson,



Tysonboss1 said:


> picture a city like sydney, if the defenders were spread right across the region, the defence would be spread so thinly that when a concentrated force of infantry and armour, backed by air support and artillery advance using skilled tactics they would roll through the suburbs like a hot knife through butter.




I'm tipping you've not been part of a military operation..  IMHO most recent operations have been successful due more to good luck than good management.    Anyway, back to being overrun, just have a cursory look at what has taken place in IRAQ (a relatively small country with reasonable ease of access) over the last number of years.. America, with all its military technology and means are still encountering resistance and have limited control.. and this is with multi national military and logistic support..

Australia is naturally a 'Hard' target.. All the more difficult when other elements are introduced into the mix..

Cheers,

Buster


----------



## Buster (14 March 2009)

Hey Nyden



Nyden said:


> No. My argument is simply one of equality. If women expect/receive equal rights in all facets of life, is it asking too much to share equal responsibilities in all facets as well? I see women as equal, treat them as equal - I don't place them at higher, nor lower value to myself. The notion of 'taking care' of women is archaic, and somewhat unfair. It's obviously still prevalent though ...




Not sure if you've looked recently, but we have lots of women on the Ships these days.. And the Ships have a _much_ nicer smell to them these days.. 

Cheers,

Buster


----------



## Nyden (14 March 2009)

Buster said:


> Hey Nyden
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yep, I know that. My question though; was whether or not women would be conscripted? Or, is there simply too much of the old philosophies left?


----------



## Sean K (14 March 2009)

Nyden said:


> No. My argument is simply one of equality. If women expect/receive equal rights in all facets of life, is it asking too much to share equal responsibilities in all facets as well? I see women as equal, treat them as equal - I don't place them at higher, nor lower value to myself. The notion of 'taking care' of women is archaic, and somewhat unfair. It's obviously still prevalent though ...



The argument should be regarding equity in this regard, not equality, imo. Males are more suited to some things than females and females better than males. All part of the reason why we have survived. Thankfully. This is archaic in the sence that it always has been the way. Men protect the cave while the women pick cave window curtains. Thankfully. Things are changing I think, but it'll be a long time before the female heavy weight champion of the world downs her male counterpart. Of course, Demi Moore did make a great SEAL, and I'd have her in my team any day.


----------



## sting (14 March 2009)

Just to lighten the mood a bit for those of you who have said that they would defend or country this is a way to prepare yourself.

Want to be a soldier, but really don't want to commit precious years of your life?
Here are some easy ways to simulate exactly what it's like to be an Australian soldier...

FIELD LIFE

Surround yourself with people who smoke like chimneys, drink like fish,
bitch/whine/complain about EVERYTHING, and use foul language that would
make a teamster blush.

Pack three days worth of clothes and toiletries. Live in your backyard for
two weeks. Go into the house only once in that two weeks to shower. Dig a
hole in your back yard and live in it. Allow no direct contact with your
family. Your only means of communication should be with letters that your
neighbours have held for at least three weeks, discarding two of five.

Every two days, fill in the hole, move to another part of the yard and dig another hole. Every time you are approximately half-way through digging the hole, have somebody come by, compliment you
on the fine hole you've dug and tell you to fill it in and dig it somewhere else.

Always dig a hole next to the hole you're living in. This is your toilet. Re-dig the hole every time your move your living hole. Fill in the old hole and mark it with a "Foul Ground" sign. Have
somebody remove the sign while you're not looking.  Dig in that exact space in 1 month's time.

Collect a jar-full of ants, dirt, various bugs and mosquitos. Pour them down the back of your shirt.

Have week old fruit and vegetables delivered to your back yard and have your neighbour give you one per day until they all go rotten and have to be thrown out.  Watch your neighbour eat as many as he wants, because he's non-tac.

If it doesn't rain, turn on the sprinklers.

If you're incredibly tired and fed-up one night, stand on guard duty in your hole from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Don't sleep at all that day, even though there's nothing to do.

Sleep for only twenty minutes at a time. No matter how tired you are. Even though there's nothing to do.

Cook your meals in your shaving mug. Eat everything cold.  Buy food with instructions in Yiddish, so it never turns out how it should.

Eat everything in three minutes. After eating, sit around for two hours, glad you ate everything in 3 minutes.

Buy two rolls of toilet paper. Ensure one of these two rolls is wet all the time.

Run around your yard, periodically throwing yourself to the ground and crawling for at least 20 meters -- or smack your shins, knees and elbows with a hammer to gain the same effect.

For two days in a row, walk 10 kilometers without stopping. Wear a poorly fitting back pack with fifty-five kg of weight in it. Bitch and whine the whole way.

When making sandwiches, leave the bread out for six days, or until it is hard and stale. Alternatively, put grated carrott, pineapple and tomato on everything so your bread runs down your arm like a liquid.

Have one meal a week served to you floating in it's own grease in a large cooler or similar insulated container. Serve coffee,  juice and other beverages the same way.

LIFE ON BASE

Surround yourself with people who smoke like chimneys, drink like fish, bitch/whine/complain about EVERYTHING, and use foul  language that would make  a teamster blush.

Wear only military uniforms. Even though nobody cares, clean and press one ceremonial uniform and wear it for 20 minutes on the whim of some crusty old guy who yells at you.

Ask for equipment or articles of clothing you really need, have somebody tell you that you're not entitled to it. Walk away without recourse.

Have your spouse whine about how you're always on deployment. Get her to put on 20kg and wear your PT army shorts around in public.  Take away her makeup and leg waxing strips.

Whenever you're bored, get drunk. Be bored often.

Study the owner's manual for all household appliances. Routinely take an appliance apart, clean it and put it back together, even though it hasn't been used.

Start a project, any project. Have somebody continually stop by and make stupid suggestions to make the job "easier". Say "yes sir" and do it the way they told you to do it. After they leave, go back to doing it the right way.

Repaint your vehicle every month, whether it needs it or not.

Move every two years. Whether you want to or not. When you get to a place you really hate, stay there for fifteen years or until your wife leaves you and you lose everything.   Have your application for reposting accepted a year after she leaves.

Replace all your appliances and furniture with those which are outdated, in need of constant repair or dangerous to use. Do more with them than you would if they were new.

If you have nothing to do, clean something that doesn't need cleaning.

TRAINING ENVIRONMENT

Surround yourself with people who smoke like chimneys, drink like fish, bitch/whine/complain about EVERYTHING, and use foul language that would make a teamster blush.

Run. Run a lot. Once in the morning, once at noon and once before supper.

Run at least five kilometers each time, pretending you really want to do this because you want to appear 'hard'.

Stand to attention in a parking lot in the hot sun for five hours, or until you pass out and fall face first into the asphalt. Have somebody yell at you the entire time. Have this same person nitpick
at you incessantly and then fine you $650.00 and confine you to your room for a week, coming out only to  go to the bathroom, shower, eat and march with a pack on in your free time.

Have somebody yell at you every time you're stupid enough go outside without a hat on, slouch, or put your hands in your pockets.

Cut your hair weekly, making it shorter each time, until you look bald or look like you lost a fight with a demented sheep shearer.

Give yourself twenty minutes less than you need for lunch. Eat so fast you don't taste the food.

Clean and shine everything to perfection. Have somebody yell at you and call you a filthy pig. Pretend to clean and shine everything to perfection again (changing nothing), Have the same person inspect it and say "good turnout".

INTERACTION WITH CIVILIANS

Leave the people behind who smoke like chimneys, drink like fish, bitch/whine/complain about EVERYTHING, and use foul language that would make a teamster blush.

Whenever civilians say or do anything stupid (it happens a lot) shake your head and mutter in your most contemptuous/condescending voice; "f$#!in' civvies".

Use copious amounts of acronyms, NEVER explain them. When asked to explain shake your head and mutter in your most contemptuous/condescending voice; f$#!in' civvies".

Have other people say stupid things to you like: "you don't pay taxes, do you?", "you get free housing", "man, you must get paid a lot". Shake your head and mutter in your most contemptuous/condescending voice; "f$#!in' civvies".

Demand that everyone never thank you for anything you do for them, look at you in a condescending manner and call you names like "G.I. Joe", AJ (Army Jerk) and "soldier boy". Shake your head and mutter in your most contemptuous/condescending voice; "f$#!in' civvies".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2009)

lol sting.

Spoken like a true rifleman.

Or you could join the RAAF or Navy.

Iron yer uniform every day, put on aftershave if you shave or if you don't, Never see a mossie etc etc etc .

lol 

gg


----------



## sting (14 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> lol sting.
> 
> Spoken like a true rifleman.
> 
> ...




Sorry Garpal, Can't play a musical instrument so the Navy isnt for me and I would get bored ****less with a 9 to 5 job so the RAAF is out

So I'll have to stick with my old trade as a 9 mile sniper or a DS teaching blokes to "Reach out and touch someone"


----------



## nunthewiser (14 March 2009)

sting said:


> Just to lighten the mood a bit for those of you who have said that they would defend or country this is a way to prepare yourself.
> 
> Want to be a soldier, but really don't want to commit precious years of your life?
> Here are some easy ways to simulate exactly what it's like to be an Australian soldier...
> ...




LOL WELL DONE 

is that bit of artwork your invention ?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 March 2009)

Buster said:


> Hey Tyson,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




well if you tipped that, you would be wrong. I worked in a special forces unit for 5 years.

Yes, The americans still encounter resistence. But there is no way the insurgents could drive out the americans, especially if you opened up their rules of engagement.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 March 2009)

Nyden said:


> No. My argument is simply one of equality. If women expect/receive equal rights in all facets of life, is it asking too much to share equal responsibilities in all facets as well? I see women as equal, treat them as equal - I don't place them at higher, nor lower value to myself. The notion of 'taking care' of women is archaic, and somewhat unfair. It's obviously still prevalent though ...




There is already loads of woman in the army, navy and airforce.

the only restrictions placed on woman is that they can not join corps that actively fight the enemy, ie. infantry, armor, artillery and engineers.

But don't be mistaken, this does not mean that the woman are not at risk and will not have to fight in self defence. Woman will still be in the area of operations.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2009)

sting said:


> Sorry Garpal, Can't play a musical instrument so the Navy isnt for me and I would get bored ****less with a 9 to 5 job so the RAAF is out
> 
> So I'll have to stick with my old trade as a 9 mile sniper or a DS teaching blokes to "Reach out and touch someone"




Mate your Field Life post will have my vote for post of the year. At least RAINF taught you never to be caught with excess baggage when you travel.

You should put that article in to the Australian Weekend Magazine or Review. I'm sure they'd pay you for it mate.

gg


----------



## Tysonboss1 (14 March 2009)

kennas said:


> And all women are beautiful amazonian tatiana like specimens who can leap tall buildings in a single bound?




Are you refering to the tatiana who was a pole vaulter,... if so she is hoooot,.... lol


----------



## Tysonboss1 (15 March 2009)

Buster said:


> Hey Tyson,
> 
> 
> Australia is naturally a 'Hard' target.. All the more difficult when other elements are introduced into the mix..
> ...




Australia is an easier target than Iraq,... Iraq has a population millions larger than Australia, it's population is relatively dense and borders are relatively non existent, which means weapons and foreign fighters can move freely from other middle east countries, russia, africa, or asia. 

Australia however has no such luck,... our cities have much smaller populations to start with,... our population centre's can be easily cut off from each other,.. and our country borders the ocean  so no such luck as bringing in foreign fighters and weapons.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (15 March 2009)

Conza88 said:


> But you have Private Defense organizations_ (Like Security Guards at a pub)_




you are an idiot,..


----------



## Conza88 (16 March 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> you are an idiot,..




I can assure you, I am far more intelligent than thou.

*There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.*_~ Herbert Spencer_

You used an ad hominem, you didn't actually address the argument.


----------



## darnsmall (16 March 2009)

JTLP said:


> Imagine this...WW3...full scale war...not naming races or anything...just a question:
> 
> - Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well? The lucky country as people have put it...
> 
> ...




Next to no chance what so ever. I don't believe in killing others or mass murder for profit and I don't believe any war will be fought for a just and righteous reason...eg, If the Islamic states decided to invade us, I couldn't hold it against them since we're trying to steal oil/resource from Iraq and have always thought we got off very lightly for killing people (non combatants)

Conscription? I'd rather go to jail...but before that I'd be getting out of the country


----------



## MrBurns (16 March 2009)

Most wars are political, no one is going to use me or mine as canon fodder to put themselves into history using that ole' "fight for your country" BS

How many died in Vietnam ??? 
*For what ???*

I've seen men permanently damaged mentally from that useless conflict.

No, piss off, use your nukes if you're that keen.


----------



## JTLP (16 March 2009)

Nyden said:


> Ah, how true. Most of us men are just pure specimens of physical strength. Wait, what's the current obesity rate? Half of us blokes (excluding myself) are beer-bellied, diabetic, cardiovascular-patients-to-be; half of which probably can't even walk 1km, let alone run it. The reality is, back in the day of older wars - the roles of men, and women were greatly defined. Men simply got a lot more exercise doing more physical forms of work, but things have vastly changed now.
> 
> Well, by this logic - I should call up the army, and tell them that women simply aren't as good as men; and perhaps my taxes should be paying them less.
> 
> Desensitized? Oh, so that's why so many vets suffer from PTSD.




Nyden i'm confused. Do you have split personalities? I distinctly remember you as being a woman...

Anyway...this 'obesity epidemic' as it has been so eloquently coined concerns roughly 50% of the POPULATION...not just males. Women don't drink beer? No diabetic women? None suffering from Cardio-vascular disease? Women running marathons daily? As Kennas floated over it...take me to this magical place! Women leaping buildings...wow 

Just because I said the majority of men are physically stronger (you cannot argue that point so please don't) and that I believe they should be put to the front you get on the defensive and bring up rubbish about men being the only one's to suffer from the aforementioned problems. Grip on reality much?

I said men are more desensitized to violence...I did not say immune. I think I made mention of it earlier that no human (unless psychotic) could live through the tragedies of war unscathed either physically or emotionally. The desensitized to violence comes from Men being more inclined to video games/sports etc that have a higher level of violence/aggressive attributes that helps to desensitize them.


----------



## starwars_guy456 (16 March 2009)

I'm not sure that I would be happy to go to war to defend the country and its way of life. Sure, where we are at the moment is the greatest place on earth, but countries, homes, and way of lives all change eventually. If I am really really sick of the country, I'd seriously just consider moving. Until that day, I will contribute to the community in a positive manner.

I will definately go to war, though, if family members are threatened. No hesitation there.


----------



## sting (16 March 2009)

Let Us Pray
Prayer of the Royal Australian Regiment

O God, We who have served in the Royal Australian Regiment, consecrate
ourselves to you by giving ourselves,body and spirit to your service and to
the service of our fellow man.

Cleanse from us everything that could mar this srvice
Grant that we may live our lives that at all times we put our duty first.
Help us to think wisely,to speak rightly,to resolve bravely,to act kindly
and to live purely.

Give us the courage to defend the causeof justice, freedom,truth and
the right to liberty.

this we ask through Christ our Lord

amen​
Who after reading this would not have the courage to defend this land that we are able to safely call HOME


----------



## Julia (16 March 2009)

sting said:


> amen​[/CENTER]
> 
> Who after reading this would not have the courage to defend this land that we are able to safely call HOME



Me, for one, if for no other reason than the invocation of religion amongst the call to arms.


----------



## Go Nuke (16 March 2009)

Sure Id go.

Just imagine if (for example) the ways of life in Iran (especially for women) and their religion were to be forced upon us....I'd fight against that for sure!



> If the Islamic states decided to invade us, I couldn't hold it against them since we're trying to steal oil/resource from Iraq and have always thought we got off very lightly for killing people (non combatants)




WTF!!!
Are you serious??
Are you Australian?

I must be miss reading that idiotic statement.


----------



## Sean K (17 March 2009)

Go Nuke said:


> WTF!!!
> Are you serious??
> Are you Australian?
> 
> I must be miss reading that idiotic statement.



I had to close the laptop on that one. I was either going nuts, or I was going to punch the screen.


----------



## darnsmall (17 March 2009)

Julia said:


> Me, for one, if for no other reason than the invocation of religion amongst the call to arms.




2nd that


----------



## darnsmall (17 March 2009)

Go Nuke said:


> Sure Id go.
> 
> Just imagine if (for example) the ways of life in Iran (especially for women) and their religion were to be forced upon us....I'd fight against that for sure!
> 
> ...




I guess according to your definition I'm un-Australian?
Yes I'm very serious...I don't agree with a lot of the crap that happens in Islam along with other countries and including my own. But at the end of the day I fully accept the responsibility of being Australian and supporting and following America into Iraq and killing Iraq's for oil. I'm not going to hide behind the delusion of WMD's I may not be the smartest tool in the shed, but I’m not that stupid or gullible. I acknowledge we did it for oil, for a lot of cheap oil, at the time I believe the quote was in the order of $3-$4trillion priced at $25/barrel with a $1production cost/per barrel. That’s $3-$4trillion profit. 
So as an Australian I don’t have a moral leg to stand on if the Islamic countries decide to join together to attack the west in retaliation (even if they use that as an excuse). I’ve lived in Sydney for the past 8 years or so expecting retaliation in one form or another and feel very thankful that my country gets to go to war while I have yet to experience what living through a war is like. And I acknowledge that we voted the same government in while we were supporting the killing of Iraqi citizens. There is no way in hell I would raise arms against them after what I as an Australia have done to them through the greatness of democracy. 
Oh and that’s no dig at democracy, I find it rather poetic and can look at it in a philosophical kind of way, I’m part of a nation that did nothing when it could to stop the government from being part of the blood for oil scheme in Iraq. I’ve profited from our dealings in Iraq. But I can’t defend my countries actions, we’re crims. I guess not much has changed in 200 years


----------



## metric (17 March 2009)

kennas said:


> I had to close the laptop on that one. I was either going nuts, or I was going to punch the screen.




thats what is so wonderful, and special about freedom of speach. you may not agree with it....you may even despise it. but you must defend someones right to say it....for whom do we trust to chose what is right for us to say, and what to hear?

.


----------



## Go Nuke (17 March 2009)

Well, im sorry. I'm just dumbfounded that anyone living here would sit back with our country being invaded and say "nope, I'm not doing anything to stop them...let them come"

In my mind it just doesn't sound Australian

Oh I totally agree with the oil/Iraq thing. I dont support that and never did. It was clear what all that was about. 
I was just looking at the question posed as if Australian had to go to war because of a foreign invaders.

Would I go to war to save my country..yes ..of course.
Would I go to war because someone like George Bush says to...no.

(Mind you, you dont have the choice if your already in the military now do you )


----------



## sting (17 March 2009)

darnsmall said:


> I guess according to your definition I'm un-Australian?
> Yes I'm very serious...I don't agree with a lot of the crap that happens in Islam along with other countries and including my own. But at the end of the day I fully accept the responsibility of being Australian and supporting and following America into Iraq and killing Iraq's for oil. I'm not going to hide behind the delusion of WMD's I may not be the smartest tool in the shed, but I’m not that stupid or gullible. I acknowledge we did it for oil, for a lot of cheap oil, at the time I believe the quote was in the order of $3-$4trillion priced at $25/barrel with a $1production cost/per barrel. That’s $3-$4trillion profit.
> So as an Australian I don’t have a moral leg to stand on if the Islamic countries decide to join together to attack the west in retaliation (even if they use that as an excuse). I’ve lived in Sydney for the past 8 years or so expecting retaliation in one form or another and feel very thankful that my country gets to go to war while I have yet to experience what living through a war is like. And I acknowledge that we voted the same government in while we were supporting the killing of Iraqi citizens. There is no way in hell I would raise arms against them after what I as an Australia have done to them through the greatness of democracy.
> Oh and that’s no dig at democracy, I find it rather poetic and can look at it in a philosophical kind of way, I’m part of a nation that did nothing when it could to stop the government from being part of the blood for oil scheme in Iraq. I’ve profited from our dealings in Iraq. But I can’t defend my countries actions, we’re crims. I guess not much has changed in 200 years






Do you not have any respect. Even by now you must know that some aussie ha laid down his life to try and protect islamic nutcases from themselves all for nothing if people like yo are here talking the way that you do.

I posted that prayer last nite for a reason that most of you would not have understood at the time. Julia I hope you now understand the reason behind it. It was not to b taken as you did but as a tribute to a brave man who approx 5 hrs earlier gave up his life to try to enable others to live some form of a decent life. At the time of publishing the prayer I wa unable to comment why.

But today of all days PLEASE show some RESPECT for a brave man who will not be coming home to life as we all know it.

DEATH YOU ARE WITH US TONIGHT
MAY ANGELS LEAD YOU IN, HERE YOU WILL BE WITH FRIENDS

UBIQUE


----------



## Go Nuke (17 March 2009)

Indeed my thoughts go out to the fallen soldier and his family.


----------



## MrBurns (17 March 2009)

Go Nuke said:


> Indeed my thoughts go out to the fallen soldier and his family.




Mine too, brave , committed......... a tragic consequence of war.


----------



## metric (17 March 2009)

> We are the sons of Australia,
> of the men who fashioned the land;
> We are the sons of the women
> Who walked with them hand in hand;
> ...




mary gilmore..


----------



## MrBurns (17 March 2009)

Wouldn't it be good if all the kids out this weekend enjoying a drink and a good time thought of this man who died in the service of their country.


----------



## Julia (17 March 2009)

sting said:


> Do you not have any respect. Even by now you must know that some aussie ha laid down his life to try and protect islamic nutcases from themselves all for nothing if people like yo are here talking the way that you do.



Why is it up to us to protect Islamic people from themselves, as you put it?
Would we find it A-OK for the Islamic armies to invade Australia to similarly protect us from ourselves?   If not, why not?  What is the difference?




> I posted that prayer last nite for a reason that most of you would not have understood at the time. Julia I hope you now understand the reason behind it.



I'm sincerely sorry about the soldier who was killed, just as I'm sorry about any human being who loses his/her life while engaged in any endeavour they believe in.

But I resent religion being involved, either by our 'side' or the so called enemy.
It is usually invoked in an attempt to confer rightness on whichever side is making the call.   I remember George Bush saying that God told him it was right to attack Iraq, ditto presumably Afghanistan.

Imo we have no business being in either of these wars and I will not be part of the emotive business of asking any God to protect either side.  Even if I held with religion, which I don't, I couldn't think of anything more hypocritical.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2009)

I have 4 sons that I know of, and I have served in the ADF. One of my sons is a digger and I worry that he may one day be in harms way.

I believe the following.

These overseas godbotherers are bloody dangerous and need to be extinguished.

I don't agree with women going to war unless they are going as nurses.

Australia has not quite lost the ability to pick its fights and win.

Our soldiers need our support.

Anyone who denigrates or opposes our soldiers in battle is a mongrel dog.

gg


----------



## gav (18 March 2009)

Julia said:


> Imo we have no business being in either of these wars and I will not be part of the emotive business of asking any God to protect either side.




So whilst Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands, we should have just sat back and done nothing because it didnt affect us?


----------



## juw177 (18 March 2009)

The number of innocent people killed by our troops dwarfs our casualties anyway. If only this story got as much sympathy:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/australian-troops-kill-5-afghan-children-20090213-874z.html

When our guys die, they are courageous soldiers with loving families, intentionally attacked by terrorists. When their civilians die, they are either militants or just an unfortunate mistake.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2009)

juw177 said:


> The number of innocent people killed by our troops dwarfs our casualties anyway. If only this story got as much sympathy:
> http://www.theage.com.au/world/australian-troops-kill-5-afghan-children-20090213-874z.html
> 
> When our guys die, they are courageous soldiers with loving families, intentionally attacked by terrorists. When their civilians die, they are either militants or just an unfortunate mistake.




Just don't read the Age mate, its a left wing rag, and on its circulation levels probably will go the way of the Bulletin.

gg


----------



## juw177 (18 March 2009)

gav said:


> So whilst Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands, we should have just sat back and done nothing because it didnt affect us?




Wow. Even when there are no WMD, people continue to twist history to justify the war. Saddam reigned with the help of the US. And the later famine that killed those hundreds of thousands was a direct result of sanctions imposed by the US.


----------



## juw177 (18 March 2009)

> http://www.theage.com.au/world/australian-troops-kill-5-afghan-children-20090213-874z.html




edit- found the link:
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/comments/id/600016/n/A-Survivor-s-Tale

Last week, SBS dateline aired an interview with the (remaining) Afghan family. The father says their home was broken into and the children were murdered in cold blood because there was supposedly terrorists in the area (none was found). The aussies just said "sorry, it was a mistake". The family got no compensation.

Garpal, thank you for your intelligent comment. Last I checked, theage was owned by fairfax. And can you explain how that takes away from what is being reported?


----------



## juw177 (18 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Our soldiers need our support.
> 
> Anyone who denigrates or opposes our soldiers in battle is a mongrel dog.




I oppose the war so there is no reason to support the soldiers. By your logic soldiers are not accountable for their actions because we should support them unconditionally. Is that what you mean?


----------



## Sean K (18 March 2009)

juw177 said:


> I oppose the war so there is no reason to support the soldiers. By your logic soldiers are not accountable for their actions because we should support them unconditionally. Is that what you mean?



I wonder how you'd feel if we had no defence force? I wonder where the country would be if we had no defence force?

I don't think you understand some very basic principles of national security juw. 

People join the defence force to offer you the security to live in the manner you do. Once they are signed up they are obligated to deploy on any mission the government (and the majority of Australians be default) demand of them. It's a requirement of service to be ready to deploy. There's no choice. 

I think it would be better that you leave this country and go somewhere where there isn't a standing defence force and see how you enjoy it. Try Somalia perhaps. Would be fine by me.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2009)

juw177 said:


> I oppose the war so there is no reason to support the soldiers. By your logic soldiers are not accountable for their actions because we should support them unconditionally. Is that what you mean?




Those type of comments condemned many of our Vietnam Vets to ridicule and being ostracised on their return from overseas service.

You should be ashamed of yourself. 

Stay in Basketweavingtown as you would get short shrift if you came to Townsville.

Disgraceful comments.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (18 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have 4 sons that I know of, and I have served in the ADF. One of my sons is a digger and I worry that he may one day be in harms way.
> 
> I believe the following.
> 
> ...




I'll go along with all of that, but I would use small nuclear arms to eliminate the religious fanatics, it's too important to the future of the planet to leave any chance of their survival.

Do not agree with sending foot soldiers in there, they aren't winning this war are they ?

Nuke them (seriously) before they get their hands on a device because they wont think twice about using it on us.


----------



## juw177 (18 March 2009)

kennas said:


> I wonder how you'd feel if we had no defence force? I wonder where the country would be if we had no defence force?
> 
> I don't think you understand some very basic principles of national security juw.




It is ridiculous to think the wars we are currently involved as a matter of defence and national security. I support a defence force to protect us when invaders destroy our homes and pillage our resources... much like a reversal of what is being done to Iraq and Afghanistan.





			
				Garpal Gumnut; said:
			
		

> Those type of comments condemned many of our Vietnam Vets to ridicule and being ostracised on their return from overseas service.
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself.




Why should I be ashamed?

That sort of public backlash was needed to end the war. The public demanded the military be accountable for what they were doing abroad. Without it, the military gets a blank cheque and more lives lost as the war dragged on.

It is unfortunate for the vets and for the people that get in harms way.


----------



## Sean K (18 March 2009)

juw177 said:


> It is ridiculous to think the wars we are currently involved as a matter of defence and national security.



You've studied strategic security obviously.

And apart from that, this thread was not about the current wars.


----------



## freddy2 (18 March 2009)

juw177 said:


> It is ridiculous to think the wars we are currently involved as a matter of defence and national security. I support a defence force to protect us when invaders destroy our homes and pillage our resources... much like a reversal of what is being done to Iraq and Afghanistan.




So you would support the US invasion of Afghanistan considering it was the nation instrumental in support of a bunch of religious fanatics crashing planes into buildings.


----------



## juw177 (18 March 2009)

kennas said:


> You've studied strategic security obviously.
> 
> And apart from that, this thread was not about the current wars.




No I haven't. Can you explain? How it is strategic to security to piss off a large percentage of the world's population?

And if we don't look at current wars how are we to assess the military?


----------



## Julia (18 March 2009)

gav said:


> So whilst Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands, we should have just sat back and done nothing because it didnt affect us?




If you seriously think (and I can't believe you or anyone would) the invasion of Iraq was to rescue the population from Saddam, why are we not currently saving the devastated people of Zimbabwe?  Or for that matter many other African nations?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (18 March 2009)

*Re: Would you go to war...*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> it is out of date and we aren't so lucky anymore. Who has good health care? Who can walk down the street without being attacked etc.




I always took the "lucky country" to mean we were lucky we didn't end up like every other british colony in the 3rd world.

we were lucky we had natural resources to fall back on.


----------



## darnsmall (18 March 2009)

sting said:


> Do you not have any respect. Even by now you must know that some aussie ha laid down his life to try and protect islamic nutcases from themselves all for nothing if people like yo are here talking the way that you do.
> 
> I posted that prayer last nite for a reason that most of you would not have understood at the time. Julia I hope you now understand the reason behind it. It was not to b taken as you did but as a tribute to a brave man who approx 5 hrs earlier gave up his life to try to enable others to live some form of a decent life. At the time of publishing the prayer I wa unable to comment why.
> 
> ...




“Do I not have any respect” followed by “…protect Islamic nutcases from themselves” I think those two quotes answer your own question. No more need be said.

I didn’t realise that free speech and honesty are dangerous to the military? Actually I jest…I know free speech and honesty are exactly what the military fear most. How do you convince people to lay down their lives for money/government/power unless you lie/delude/persuade them?

I don’t believe many of us can call ourselves brave in this country, I for one still live here despite the atrocities we have committed and I do so because I enjoy the lifestyle. I don’t think there are many people at all who are fighting against what we have done to try and right the wrongs; hopefully I’m wrong.


----------



## darnsmall (18 March 2009)

juw177 said:


> I oppose the war so there is no reason to support the soldiers. By your logic soldiers are not accountable for their actions because we should support them unconditionally. Is that what you mean?




I think we need to be critical of the government who controls the army and because i voted this government in (even if I didn't vote for them i still chose to live in this democracy) I'm partly responsible for troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in a way it's kind of pointless not supporting the troops since I voted for it; and I'm part of it. I reap the benefits of them fighting/killing/murdering I have now doubt my hands are as bloody as theres but my detachment from the conflict means I can sleep easy at night. 

I struggle to really support them, I look at the military not as human, but as a resource or tool used by the government to usurp other resource/power/money. Government tells them what to do, they do it. I don't get the emotional attachment as I don't have any family in the military and my own kids will be disowned if they chose that path.

As for being accountable, I'm not sure war crimes apply to the victors. I guess for the general community its a good idea to make an example of one or two bad dogs once in a while and leave it at that.


----------



## darnsmall (18 March 2009)

Julia said:


> If you seriously think (and I can't believe you or anyone would) the invasion of Iraq was to rescue the population from Saddam, why are we not currently saving the devastated people of Zimbabwe?  Or for that matter many other African nations?




We are not saving anyone unless we can secure a valuable resource without the threat of nuclear war. So if we find the worlds largest new oil reserve that will power the world for the next 1000 years in Zimbabwe; we'll be there!!! I don't think there is anything wrong with that either, we are strong and think we can take what we want...only problem with that is when we are weak we'll cop it. Bit like the current financial crisis eh...not much thought into the future


----------



## metric (18 March 2009)

funny how those 'islamic nutcases' were called 'mujahadin' (freedom fighters) by western media when the us was supplying them with weapons to fight the russians. now the media calls them, 'taliban'....those same people whom are fighting the invaders, now that the us has invaded them.

during the self governance of afghanistan, the opium crop was all but stopped. since the yanks invaded, opium has exploded.......where has the heroin ended up....? on western streets.... billions of dollars per year. pure coincidence again ...right....

who will scratch their head and deny it??


.


----------



## Sean K (18 March 2009)

metric said:


> funny how those 'islamic nutcases' were called 'mujahadin' (freedom fighters) by western media when the us was supplying them with weapons to fight the russians. now the media calls them, 'taliban'....those same people whom are fighting the invaders, now that the us has invaded them.
> 
> during the self governance of afghanistan, the opium crop was all but stopped. since the yanks invaded, opium has exploded.......where has the heroin ended up....? on western streets.... billions of dollars per year. pure coincidence again ...right....
> 
> ...



Um, I think the Taliban fought against the Muj to take control the country, by memory. To be corrected.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (18 March 2009)

JTLP said:


> Imagine this...WW3...full scale war...not naming races or anything...just a question:
> 
> - Would you give up everything you have known to defend the country that has treated you so well? The lucky country as people have put it...
> 
> ...




In a second! :bigun2:


----------



## Julia (18 March 2009)

freddy2 said:


> So you would support the US invasion of Afghanistan considering it was the nation instrumental in support of a bunch of religious fanatics crashing planes into buildings.



The terrorists were by nationality:
15 Saudi Arabia
 1 Egypt
 1 Lebanon
 2 U.A.E.

Not an Afghan amongst them.

I acknowledge that Afghanistan was alleged to be knowingly allowing Bin Laden to live there, but have never been able to see that bombing the whole country was any appropriate reprisal to the attack on America.


----------



## kitehigh (18 March 2009)

darnsmall said:


> We are not saving anyone unless we can secure a valuable resource without the threat of nuclear war. So if we find the worlds largest new oil reserve that will power the world for the next 1000 years in Zimbabwe; we'll be there!!! I don't think there is anything wrong with that either, we are strong and think we can take what we want...only problem with that is when we are weak we'll cop it. Bit like the current financial crisis eh...not much thought into the future




You must be suffering from some kind of bipolar disease.  On the one hand you say there is nothing wrong with taking another countries resources by force, and than you say you don't support the military.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## darnsmall (18 March 2009)

kitehigh said:


> You must be suffering from some kind of bipolar disease.  On the one hand you say there is nothing wrong with taking another countries resources by force, and than you say you don't support the military.  You can't have it both ways.




I can see why we are doing what we are doing and by living in Australia support what we've done, but I'm critical of our actions. I struggle to ever find a use for the military that I'd support. I think it really just a tool for the forceful acquisition of resource/infrastructure. Hence there is no way in hell I'd take up arms to defend this country when I happen to agree and acknowledge that we have done the wrong thing by Iraq.


----------



## metric (18 March 2009)

kennas said:


> Um, I think the Taliban fought against the Muj to take control the country, by memory. To be corrected.




as ALL afghans, except the traitors were mujahadin or sympathisers of them, the taliban would have to be made up of them....


.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (18 March 2009)

wabbit said:


> Impressive family history....
> 
> What blog?
> 
> ...





Whoops sorry Wabbit, try here  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14370

I'll alter my sig.

Thanks

Sir O


----------



## Go Nuke (19 March 2009)

> during the self governance of afghanistan, the opium crop was all but stopped. since the yanks invaded, opium has exploded.......where has the heroin ended up....? on western streets.... billions of dollars per year. pure coincidence again ...right....




Where do you think the CIA gets its funding from??

Untrackable and accountable money.



> No I haven't. Can you explain? How it is strategic to security to piss off a large percentage of the world's population?




Is that an acurate statement? A large percentage of the population?
I'm not sure I can agree with that.
Unless you mean Muslims...but then its the terrorists who are dragging their religeon into this war and calling it a crime against their faith.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (9 November 2013)

London (AFP) - A British commando was facing life in jail on Friday for executing a severely injured Afghan insurgent, shooting the captured man in the chest while quoting Shakespeare.

The Royal Marine, known only as Marine A, was found guilty of murdering the unknown man while deployed in the southern Helmand province of Afghanistan in 2011.

Two others, Marines B and C, were acquitted of the charges against them following a two-week court martial in Bulford, southwest England.

The victim had been shot by a helicopter looking for insurgents who attacked a patrol base, and the marines found him lying seriously injured in a field.

They moved him under the cover of trees, where Marine A shot him from close range with a nine-millimetre pistol.

As the victim convulsed and died in front of him, the commando quoted from Shakespeare's Hamlet -- with his own foul-mouthed addition.

"There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you c**t. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us," he said.

He then turned to his comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

The execution was inadvertently filmed by Marine B's helmet camera.

Marine A admitted firing his gun in anger but insisted the insurgent was already dead.

"Stupid, lack of self-control, momentary lapse in my judgement," he told the court martial.

"I cannot give any other reason than to say that it was poor judgement and lack of self-control. I thought he was dead."

He blamed "foolish bravado" for quoting Shakespeare at the dying man and said it was something "I am not proud of".

Footage of the murder was found on a laptop by military police investigating unrelated matters in September last year.

After the verdict, one of Britain's highest ranking Royal Marines branded the execution "truly shocking and appalling".

Brigadier Bill Dunham, Deputy Commandant General, said: "It is a matter of profound regret in this isolated incident that one marine failed to apply his training and discharge his responsibilities.

"What we have heard over the last two weeks is not consistent with the ethos, values and standards of the Royal Marines.

"It was a truly shocking and appalling aberration. It should not have happened and it should never happen again."

Marine A was convicted by a seven-strong board of officers and non-commissioned officers and was remanded into custody ahead of sentencing on December 6.

Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett said: "Marine A, this court has found you guilty of murder. The mandatory sentence prescribed by law is imprisonment for life.

"This court now has to determine the minimum term you will serve before you are eligible for release."

Marines B and C were acquitted of having been "party to the killing" and having "encouraged and assisted" their comrade in committing the murder.

The judge rejected an application to release the video footage to media, saying it could be used as propaganda against British forces.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this situation ridiculous.
It's ok to go to war but it's illegal to murder a wounded soldier in cold blood whilst quoting Shakespeare???  War *IS *murder, that's the definition of war.  Kill and conquer.  Just do it in a certain way, according to the Geneva convention.  Do the murder in a socially acceptable way.  And whatever you do, don't call anyone a c**t.  I despise the stupidity of human nature.


----------



## MrBurns (9 November 2013)

Meanwhile in soft c*** Australia a guy gets 4 years for killing a young man with one punch.

When the Star Chamber gets moving in Australia count me in.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (9 November 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Meanwhile in soft c*** Australia a guy gets 4 years for killing a young man with one punch.
> 
> When the Star Chamber gets moving in Australia count me in.




Yes but do you see my point?  I mean, why *not *quote Shakespeare?  Why *not* sing a Britney Speares song as you pump lead into someone?  Is firing a missile at a township different to shooting a wounded soldier point blank?  No difference at all imo. War is for killing.  You either partake or you don't.


----------



## MrBurns (9 November 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes but do you see my point?  I mean, why *not *quote Shakespeare?  Why *not* sing a Britney Speares song as you pump lead into someone?  Is firing a missile at a township different to shooting a wounded soldier point blank?  No difference at all imo. War is for killing.  You either partake or you don't.




It supposedly shows disrespect but seems hypercritical as you are executing the enemy anyway.


----------

