Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Falklands nonsense again?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    Well IRA was internal issue and I doubt if UK would have accepted any help wrt to IRA.
    Well Dok we would have been appreciative if fund raising and rallies in the USA had been stopped ( somehow ) for weapon support for the IRA ;)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
      We can't. We have hero's buried there.
      Target , stop ;)

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
        Never doubted you, tankie.

        I rib you alot but I've always respected you and your world views.

        I'm just a little peeved that someone else that I respect have that view.

        And if you copy/paste what I wrote about respecting you in any other thread, I'm going to tip you over from your trike. ;)
        #


        B/S your on a list of undesirables prevented to enter the UK . Your powerless

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by tankie View Post
          #


          B/S your on a list of undesirables prevented to enter the UK . Your powerless
          Never underestimate the Asians Americans power to make jihad in a foreign country.

          I will tip you over if it's the last thing I do.

          Mihais...sorry about your loss, dude. I'll try to respond when I get home tonight.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
            Never underestimate the Asians Americans power to make jihad in a foreign country.

            I will tip you over if it's the last thing I do..
            Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn

            Comment


            • #51
              Thanks ,YF.Really,these beings set a standard wrt loyalty. The point,besides me being angry is that nations or whatever political groups don't do anything because it's ''right''. Interests decide what's ''right''.As individuals however it gets more personal.What's ''right'' is what we choose. Most here probably think like me,that it was ''right'' for you to go there in bloody their noses.I have no idea if non-Americans are representative for their nations in that regard and to what degree.Still,is not ''right'' for some Americans here to have no qualms showing the middle finger to their friends.Is disloyal.
              Those who know don't speak
              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

              Comment


              • #52
                Lots of words YF but still no answer from any American here, would the same American effort have gone into the 'GWOT' if the 9/11 attack was on a building in London?

                As for the ABCA countries going to war to trade favours with the US, Australia is really the only one with an external security situation potentially severe enough for that to be a rational approach. Post Cold War Canada is completely secure due to its location, they don't need any favours from you. Apart from its offshore territories like the Falklands, Britain is also completely secure due to its location and nuclear arsenal. If they were in the GWOT to trade favours the attitude of Obama and people like Gungrape about the Falklands should give them cause to consider whether they bother doing so in the future. In that sense Mihias hits the nail on the head.

                Btw, the US does twist its allies arms for troop contributions, we were asked for extra troops to be sent to Iraq and New Zealand was asked to conscript for Vietnam.
                Last edited by Aussiegunner; 12 Dec 11,, 23:48.
                "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                  If they were in the GWOT to trade favours the attitude of Obama and people like Gungrape about the Falklands should give them cause to consider whether they bother doing so in the future. In that sense Mihias hits the nail on the head.
                  If anyone was in the GWOT to trade favours they haven't been paying attention to US policy since the Nixon Doctrine back in the early 70s. If America ever operated that way as a matter of course it hasn't for a very long time. Nor should it. No one is sitting around in DC saying' we really owe those Aussies for sending 50,000 troops to Vietnam' (or, I suspect, for the handful we sent to Iraq or Afghanistan). Too many Australian soldiers have suffered and died in the service of buying favours from our 'great and powerful friends'. We should have learned our lesson on that score lesson in Vietnam. If we can't justify sending troops because the cause is right or we believe it is right to help another nation then we should keep them home. Such favours as we do get will never cover the cost in blood & treasure.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    So in summary yes, the GWOT was principally intended to protect Americans, yes GB, Australia and other US allies should be there because protecting your mates is a good cause and yes, British allies who don't want to engage in the equally good cause of protecting thier British mates in the Falklands if needed are bums.
                    Last edited by Aussiegunner; 13 Dec 11,, 12:21.
                    "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      As an interesting exercise: How would Australia & Canada Contribute if stateside were too povvo to spare a DDG or 2?

                      My contribution list would be
                      2 A-330's
                      4 C-17's?
                      2 Anzac's
                      HMAS Choules
                      EP3 & P3C?
                      Whatever rotor wings fit on Choules.

                      The Air Defence chaps from Woodside ADR

                      4 Platforms there the Poms are familiar with.

                      Should Imagine Canada could contribute a couple of C-17's as well.
                      Ego Numquam

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        All good options, though I'd replace an ANZAC with an upgraded FFG for enhanced area air defence. The P-3s dont have the range to operate out of Ascension unrefueled, but the poms could probably help us bang up a probe like they did on thier Nimrods and Victors last time. Given that the Nimrods are gone the P-3s alone would be a huge contribution. A Collins Class might be of value too, they don't have any conventionals for recon and special forces insertion now.
                        "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Aussiegunner Reply

                          I'm going to answer your hypothetical. The U.S. would very likely have rendered any and all assistance to the British government as requested had London been attacked as we were on 9/11. We would, under the Bush administration, had likely let the British government know everything was on the table including but not limited to combat operations in Afghanistan if deemed desirable or necessary by their government.

                          "So in summary yes, the GWOT was principally intended to protect Americans..."

                          Bullsh!t. In summary, the GWOT was and remains principally to protect our commonly threatened interests. If not-don't fight and, instead, send hugs and kisses to A.Q. because you'd evidently perceive them as no threat to you.

                          Would that be true, Aussiegunner? Independant of however A.Q. views America, do you perceive A.Q. as a threat to Australians?

                          I highly doubt the Australian government, nor any other, offered their forces because we NEEDED your assistance. Instead, forces were offered from around the world and fought in Afghanistan because common interests are shared.

                          Polish and Romanian troops don't fight in Afghanistan to assure continued U.S. protection from Russia. That, too, is utter bullsh!t. They, instead, fight from a commonly-shared credo. If Russian troops marched into Poland and/or Romania tomorrow it's likely there's not a damned thing America can do to stop it save ratchet the consequences of such a decision back to another cold war.

                          Nothing has changed from that brutal calculus.

                          I've answered your challenge. So, back to my question Aussiegunner-Independant of A.Q.'s views of America, do YOU consider them a threat to Australians?
                          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Chunder & Aussiegunner Reply

                            Cut the fanboy chatter about toys in the Falklands. None of that matters unless you make the commitment for such a defense and BASE those forces there NOW.

                            Neither Australia nor Canada will be doing squat after hostilities ensue.

                            Too late by a country mile.

                            This isn't a wargame. It's a POLITICAL decision made publically in your government's highest offices designed to serve as fair warning to the Argentinian government of a commitment by the Australian and Canadian people to British territorial interests.
                            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              S2

                              You need to get out of this lather because it is impacting on your normally very good judgement. There is simply no way the US would have put in the same effort in the GWOT if London had been attacked. Bush had enough trouble convincing the American public of the merits of what he did even when it was for the US. Would he have done it for the UK? Get real, there are too many voters like Gungrape to consider.

                              Your question, do I consider AQ to be a threat to Australia. Yes. Big enough to justify our commitment to the GWOT? No. The most important implication for us of AQ is radicalisation in Indonesia, which we mainly influence with foriegn aid and diplomacy. Our association with you works probably against us there in many ways. We went to war to demonstrate our alliance commitment but also because our leaders and population thought it was the right thing to do. Just like the intervention in East Timor where we gave away oil and gas rights, threatened our relationship with our most important neighbour and adopted a failed state for the sake of principle. Anything but cold calculus might seem too foriegn for you to understand, but I am telling you there is more than that at play.

                              Your comment about us deploying troops to the Falklands now is just stupid. Imagine the amusement in London if Julia rang up David and said 'I'm a bit worried about the Falklands so I'm sending troops'. The normal course of events is that if an ally needs assistance, they ask for it. The only circumstance wher I see thst possibly happening is if the British needed extra assets to recapture the place. Without being disrespectful to the RN, thier fleet has shrunk enough thst the sort of contribution Australia could make would make a difference nowdays - especially the LPD that they have just transfered to us. I think the Brits here would agree. That is why discussions about assets that we can deploy are relevant.

                              Of course, if your trecherous swine of a President had even just stayed out of the dispute, this would be far less of an issue. Instead he suggested through the OAS that your best ally should negotiate about its soveriegn territory. The fuckwit has emboldened the Argies and made the prospect of war worse, due to personal prejudice and wanting the hispanic vote. With the amount of time you all spend bitching about him, I thought you'd get that.
                              Last edited by Aussiegunner; 13 Dec 11,, 14:50.
                              "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Bush had enough trouble convincing the American public of the merits of what he did even when it was for the US. Would he have done it for the UK? Get real, there are too many voters like Gungrape to consider.
                                Are you serious? The entire nation wanted blood on 9/12, wanted it bad. If anything, Bush moved too slowly for the tastes of American John Q Public.

                                I guarantee that if London had taken an equivalent attack on 9-11 instead of NY, the U.S. commitment would have been similar. Where is all this coming from?

                                I think one of the reasons the USA didn't send a Marine expeditionary unit and a carrier to the Falklands was because it was not wanted by GB. Was not asked for. Something else to consider... the Falklands war revolved around air. The Argentinian threat was primarily air. And GB had, to counter it... the harrier, which had no A-A missiles until the USA delivered the AIM-9L and the technicians to fit it to the harrier in a crash program. Without the Lima, the harriers would have been helpless to prevent the Argentines from pounding the British warships. GB woud have been limited to ship and shore based SHORAD, and that didn't prove all that effective, with the Argentinians flying at 20 meters over the water.

                                The Lima was launched 24 times, and scored 22 kills. All without any pilot interface beyond sound... missile tone. It tipped the conflict in GB's favor.

                                As for SEA... didn't we have a little treaty called SEATO and ANZUS? Didn't that treaty call for a common defense in SEA against communist aggression? Every lost life was precious, but there were a LOT more Americans lost than any other nation. That, right on top of 50,000 dead in chilly Korea.

                                This bickering seems petty and more appropriate for other defense forums I've been a member of. The nations of Australia, USA, GB, Canada, and NZ, are as close to brother and sister as nations possibly can be. The last thing we need in the decades to come is division within our ranks.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X