Political Crossfire Forums

[watermelon]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: Golddave wrote: Everyone knows we saved a lot of people's asses in both world wars,
why didn't we get a jersey?

'Cos you're an insignificant little nation at the bottom of the world and you can't brew a decent pint either...... :-D

Australia was not insignificant enough to replace the UN Charter that was produced by the AUSTRALIAN Attorney General at the organizations founding.

Secondly we were not insignificant when AUSTRALIAN SAS troops controlled the entire western half of Iraq during the last war, With NO assistance from the US, The UK or any other coalition forces. This section of Iraq(geographical more that half) was taken and controlled within days, Australian Troops suffered NO casualties, and kept complete control of the Area until handing over to US forces who quickly let the area disintegrate into Chaos.

And if Australia is so insignificant why that has the US just signed a free-trade deal with us? and why are China seeking to do the same?

Lastly, "we can't brew a pint"? what the bloody hell have you been drinking?! Australian beer (especially Tasmanian beer) consistently wins international awards for the best brews. ........Oh sorry I forgot you like your beer warm and tasting of water.

[Locke_]

Keyward here is "security" how is Austrailia going to stop wars or be really effective in them?

[watermelon]

Locke_ wrote: Keyward here is "security" how is Austrailia going to stop wars or be really effective in them?

I think the past 12 months has shown us that military or economic power is no indicator of whether a nation can broker peace or create security. I believe that security can only be reached by mediation with local authorities to control terrorism(or what ever the issue may be) on a regional level, allowing for an understanding of cultural sensitivities and practices that may be bypassed by outside forces.

Australia is a powerful player in the region, with the largest economy and best equipped military in the area. Australia has displayed in it's past a willingness and ability to be an effective fighting force as was displayed from the South African (Boer) war, the first and second World Wars and on to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again.

In all these conflicts Australian Troops have played vital rolls whether in the Battles of the Somme or the latest conflict with the occupation and control of vast areas of Iraq, the Australian Forces have shown themselves to be equally as effective as the forces of other nations, with the Australian SAS being ranked highly as one of the worlds most highly trained and efficient Special Forces Units.

However it is through the diplomatic ties, trade relations and strong regional treaties that Australia would be able to be an effective force for the security in the South-east Asian and Pacific areas, by encouraging regional strategies to combat terrorism on a local basis with the aim of combating the cell groups, the financing and training of the terrorist groups. It is only this local level that Terrorism can be truly fought and security found. By having an understanding of the cultures, the people and the problems on a closer level an removing the unnecessary upheaval caused by the occupation of a non-regional outside power as has been seen in Iraq.

[thundertaker]

Shouldn't a nation's economy be taken into account? Britain has the world's 4th largest economy, that alone should guarantee it a place above Russia.....

[Locke_]

watermelon wrote: Locke_ wrote: Keyward here is "security" how is Austrailia going to stop wars or be really effective in them?

I think the past 12 months has shown us that military or economic power is no indicator of whether a nation can broker peace or create security. I believe that security can only be reached by mediation with local authorities to control terrorism(or what ever the issue may be) on a regional level, allowing for an understanding of cultural sensitivities and practices that may be bypassed by outside forces.

Australia is a powerful player in the region, with the largest economy and best equipped military in the area. Australia has displayed in it's past a willingness and ability to be an effective fighting force as was displayed from the South African (Boer) war, the first and second World Wars and on to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again.

In all these conflicts Australian Troops have played vital rolls whether in the Battles of the Somme or the latest conflict with the occupation and control of vast areas of Iraq, the Australian Forces have shown themselves to be equally as effective as the forces of other nations, with the Australian SAS being ranked highly as one of the worlds most highly trained and efficient Special Forces Units.

However it is through the diplomatic ties, trade relations and strong regional treaties that Australia would be able to be an effective force for the security in the South-east Asian and Pacific areas, by encouraging regional strategies to combat terrorism on a local basis with the aim of combating the cell groups, the financing and training of the terrorist groups. It is only this local level that Terrorism can be truly fought and security found. By having an understanding of the cultures, the people and the problems on a closer level an removing the unnecessary upheaval caused by the occupation of a non-regional outside power as has been seen in Iraq.

Well next time Austraila goes off and fights a major war singlehandedly and proves they can win and garuntee "security" give me a call.

[Golddave]

Locke_ wrote: watermelon wrote: Locke_ wrote: Keyward here is "security" how is Austrailia going to stop wars or be really effective in them?

I think the past 12 months has shown us that military or economic power is no indicator of whether a nation can broker peace or create security. I believe that security can only be reached by mediation with local authorities to control terrorism(or what ever the issue may be) on a regional level, allowing for an understanding of cultural sensitivities and practices that may be bypassed by outside forces.

Australia is a powerful player in the region, with the largest economy and best equipped military in the area. Australia has displayed in it's past a willingness and ability to be an effective fighting force as was displayed from the South African (Boer) war, the first and second World Wars and on to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again.

In all these conflicts Australian Troops have played vital rolls whether in the Battles of the Somme or the latest conflict with the occupation and control of vast areas of Iraq, the Australian Forces have shown themselves to be equally as effective as the forces of other nations, with the Australian SAS being ranked highly as one of the worlds most highly trained and efficient Special Forces Units.

However it is through the diplomatic ties, trade relations and strong regional treaties that Australia would be able to be an effective force for the security in the South-east Asian and Pacific areas, by encouraging regional strategies to combat terrorism on a local basis with the aim of combating the cell groups, the financing and training of the terrorist groups. It is only this local level that Terrorism can be truly fought and security found. By having an understanding of the cultures, the people and the problems on a closer level an removing the unnecessary upheaval caused by the occupation of a non-regional outside power as has been seen in Iraq.

Well next time Austraila goes off and fights a major war singlehandedly and proves they can win and garuntee "security" give me a call.

I suppose you could count East Timor as an example of this.

[watermelon]

Locke_ wrote:
Well next time Australia goes off and fights a major war singlehandedly and proves they can win and guarantee "security" give me a call.

I think you missed my point, the issue of security is no longer a matter of dominate nations being able to win wars single handedly, seeing as their are few examples of of any nations winning wars independently for the last few centuries. Wars and security issues can only be successfully concluded with the negotiating of alliances with outside parties to provide support be it moral or physical, even during the 100 years war England, France and Spain were constantly bargaining for treaties to give their side the advantage. Like wise in todays conflicts, it is only through coalitions and partnerships that security issues such as Terrorism can successfully be combated.

Australia may not have the fire power to wage large scale conflicts 'single handedly', however recent events such as East Timor and the role Australia played in the securing of peace in the Solomon Islands and Fiji demonstrate the nations ability to work cohesively and effectively with the surrounding nations in the South East Asian Region. It can only be through regional security that global security can be reached.

thundertaker wrote:
Shouldn't a nation's economy be taken into account? Britain has the world's 4th largest economy, that alone should guarantee it a place above Russia.....

Britain I assume could be represented by an EU representative, which would be able to rotate between to member nations. ( I'm not sure how this could work in practice though with the diversity of political ideals)

[thundertaker]

No f***ing way should Britain give up it's seat to be represented by an EU dominated by the Franco-German axis. We don't need to, so why the hell should we?
Maybe Germany should have it's own seat given that it's military and economic power matches that of France and the UK. A common European foreign policy is the slippery slop to superstatehood, the ultimate nightmare.........

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

A common european foreign policy would make us all living in the continent move to better places like Iraq or Afganistand.Aa for countries in the UN security counsil how about Greece because.....well we make a great olive oil.

[Brasil Branco]

Sorry to burst your bubble watermelon, but Australia will never be let into the security council. It just doesn't have the population and there are too many stronger countries in terms of economy, and military.

I doubt Brazil or India will ever be let in. Though, both hold significant power. The only country that stands half a chance is Japan.

[thundertaker]

Japan refuses to aquire nuclear weapons on principle. I don't know whether it is a requirement as such, but all the permanent members seem to have 'The Bomb'....

[Golddave]

Brasil Branco wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble watermelon, but Australia will never be let into the security council. It just doesn't have the population and there are too many stronger countries in terms of economy, and military.

I doubt Brazil or India will ever be let in. Though, both hold significant power. The only country that stands half a chance is Japan.

Mate, anything is possible, give us 20 years, we'll be kicking your ass in soccer. :wink:

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Well next time Austraila goes off and fights a major war singlehandedly and proves they can win and garuntee "security" give me a call.

Using that logic the U.S. should not be on the security council either? Lets look at some of the wars America was in shall we...

WWI and II: U.S. did not win singlehandedly, they were part of an allied coalition.

Gulf Wars: U.S. did not win singlehandedly, they were part of an allied coalition.

Vietnam War: Allied with South Vietnam and lost.

Korean War: U.S. did not win singlehandedly, they were part of an allied coalition.

Revolutionary War: U.S. did not win singlehandedly, had French economic and military support.

War with Grenada: U.S. did not win singlehandedly, Several Carribean nations were involved.

[loyalist]

I'd like to see Canada on the security council. It's only fair, really, because we contribute so much to peacekeeping, the UN, and borkering deals between belligerents.

[Janis]

Voice of Reason wrote:
Vietnam War: Allied with South Vietnam and lost.



Need to cut in and set the record straight regarding the US losing the war in Vietnam..
Please excuse the interuption.

Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.

Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American
military did not lose a battle of any consequence. >From a military
standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. General
Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of
California, Berkley (a renowned expert on the Vietnam War). This included Tet 68,
which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.

THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.
Read on........

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American
military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their
entirety 29 March 1973.

How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to
an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27
January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal
of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam
and a commitment to peaceful reunification. The 140,000 evacuees in
April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians
and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives.
There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily
Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there
were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. Thanks for
the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited
upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American
media and their undying support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War
movement in the United States.

As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and
misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an
overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for
the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite
initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted
in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer
of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington,
Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the
Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts.
It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if
not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The
Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet
Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and
the political arena. This was another example in the Vietnam War of an
inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However inaccurately reported,
the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous.


http://4dw.net/jqueen/truth.html

[SpartanPhalanx]

Janis.


Look, if you want to believe the sky is pink, you can, nobody's going to stop you if that's what you really want to believe.

Same applies to Vietnam. You lost the war. Whether it was through lack of political will is irrelevant. The fact remains, the U.S was defeated.

The U.S started pulling troops out of Vietnam in 1973 and ended with the less than dignified exit from the U.S embassy in Saigon in 1975.

Those are not actions victors undertake.

[Janis]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: Janis.


Look, if you want to believe the sky is pink, you can, nobody's going to stop you if that's what you really want to believe.

Same applies to Vietnam. You lost the war. Whether it was through lack of political will is irrelevant. The fact remains, the U.S was defeated.

The U.S started pulling troops out of Vietnam in 1973 and ended with the less than dignified exit from the U.S embassy in Saigon in 1975.

Those are not actions victors undertake.

The US was not defeated. We left. There is a difference.. You can be sure America isn't going to allow the "anti-war" commie sympathizers influence our foreign policy again... as you saw with the re-election of GWB..

[Nico]

janis wrote: SpartanPhalanx wrote: Janis.


Look, if you want to believe the sky is pink, you can, nobody's going to stop you if that's what you really want to believe.

Same applies to Vietnam. You lost the war. Whether it was through lack of political will is irrelevant. The fact remains, the U.S was defeated.

The U.S started pulling troops out of Vietnam in 1973 and ended with the less than dignified exit from the U.S embassy in Saigon in 1975.

Those are not actions victors undertake.

The US was not defeated. We left. There is a difference.. You can be sure America isn't going to allow the "anti-war" commie sympathizers influence our foreign policy again... as you saw with the re-election of GWB..


Whipped...and badly.

The US lost some 50 000, the vietnamese 2 million give or take, but they're still there and you're all gone. [no offence, but it's no shame to be defeated by the same people who defeated the mongols]

[thundertaker]

Aren't there still a load of 'missing' american POWs who the Vietcong never released?

[Nico]

I'm not sure about the final outcome of that situation, I'll have to look into it.


Anyway, this is a piece on the mongol invasions, sounds eerily familiar.
http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/9.htm