PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: ##RaCeR## on March 17, 2003, 05:48:52 PM
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.news2.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Fnm%2F20030317%2Fmdf234278.jpg&hash=103a62780d41b67d43e1108d8a9d8f435e3282d2)
An anti-war message is sprayed onto the sails of the world famous Sydney Opera, March 17, 2003. Australian troops will fight in a war against Iraq (news - web sites) if the United States launches military action to disarm Baghdad of alleged weapons of mass destruction, Prime Minister John Howard said. (Mark Baker/Reuters)
-
That\'s disgusting...
How were they able to pull that off? How many suspects?
-
haha. I\'ll be damned. That may be one of the more "impressive" anti-war messages.
I mean, I don\'t agree with it, but that had to be a complicated feat to pull off.
-
why does oz have a military?
-
Originally posted by mm
why does oz have a military?
WTF do you mean by that? Sure, we may be USA ass kissers but we are still self reliant.
John Howard has just commited another 2000 troops to Iraq on top of the 500 SAS and 2000+ already in Iraq.
-
Them damn Tazmanians keep threatning to invade...
;D
-
That picture is easily done in Photoshop but it is real. How did they pull that off though? I applaud them for pulling that off and I\'ll aplaud more when the assholes get caught.
-
MM brings out a good point...OZ and military doesn\'t add up.
:D
-
Whats OZ? I know I sound like an idiot.
-
Tasmania is actually an Australian state...
Why shouldn\'t Australia have a military? I understand Canada, but not Australia.
-
I don\'t really see why Australia needs much of a military, but shit, they sent 4000 soldiers. Big F\'ing deal. I have to imagine that 3900 of them are there to clean the jocks of american soldiers.
The other 100 wish they could clean the jocks of american soldiers.
Vid ducks under his desk....
-
I dont care as long as they do something. Everyone talks big shit, but then the US are the ones to send 90% of the men and materials.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
I don\'t really see why Australia needs much of a military, but shit, they sent 4000 soldiers. Big F\'ing deal. I have to imagine that 3900 of them are there to clean the jocks of american soldiers.
The other 100 wish they could clean the jocks of american soldiers.
Vid ducks under his desk....
I have just lost all respect for you. I\'m glad not all Americans have the disgusting views that you do.
Australia didn\'t have to commit troops, but it\'s commited what it can because Australia as a nation respects the views and values that America does. Sure, Australia may not have a massive armed forces, but at least its trying to help out.
You honestly make me sick.
-
I figure as long as they send someone, it\'s more than we had. It may not be a lot of people, but it\'s like a poor guy gives you half his ownings. While it may only be a few dollars, it\'s still HALF his property.
-
Oz is a gay show on HBO.
-
im behind racer on this. I dont know much about war and stuff and i dont post on this part because my views are just "bomb them" and dont have any reason behind just the fac that they deserve it. But i do know australia has been loyal to us, so for dissing them for having a military is moronic IMO.
-
haha, "loyal to us"
at your service great master.
-
i dont mean to offend any aussie\'s here (all 2 of em), but honestly, oz + military doesnt make sense
-
Originally posted by mm
i dont mean to offend any aussie\'s here (all 2 of em), but honestly, oz + military doesnt make sense
WHY??? No one seems to be able to give a reason. Where do you think America started? Of course it had to start out small. Why can\'t Australia try to be self reliant?
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
I have just lost all respect for you. I\'m glad not all Americans have the disgusting views that you do.
Australia didn\'t have to commit troops, but it\'s commited what it can because Australia as a nation respects the views and values that America does. Sure, Australia may not have a massive armed forces, but at least its trying to help out.
You honestly make me sick.
Oh you are a poop head. I was just screwing with you cause I knew it would piss you off.
But thanks so much for the 4000 troops. They will certainly make the difference. Aussies rock.
Please tell me you have advanced your weaponry past the boomerang though. heh.
-
Vid, thats just not funny. Have some respect.
If we had more troops then we\'d give them, but we don\'t.
-
so that comes back to MM\'s point.
BTW, what troops did Australia send? I have to assume medics or something.
-
self reliant?
has oz ever been threatened in any way, shape or form?
or do you keep a military in case the aborigines rise up and want thier land back?
-
Originally posted by luckee
I dont care as long as they do something. Everyone talks big shit, but then the US are the ones to send 90% of the men and materials.
Yeah, that\'s generally the concept of playing world police. If your dumb nut prez wants to play big, he\'ll have to send the troops.
-
Originally posted by mm
self reliant?
has oz ever been threatened in any way, shape or form?
or do you keep a military in case the aborigines rise up and want thier land back?
Americans please take note of the picture linked below.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/images/world/nations-world-map.jpg
This is our world, you know, the bit outside America that has land, other customs, cultures and opinions.
Please also pay particular attention to the fact that Australia is F*cking close to the huge war in the pacific that happened only a couple of generations ago (I think it was called WWII), they had to defend themselves from primarily the Japanese but others also,...............they did bloody well too.
Next time you question a countries army please research to find out how useful they have been in the past.
Oh and the U.S. have 90% of the troops in the gulf as they probably have about 90% of the troops in the friendly world!
-
so when\'s the last time there was a battle on australian soil?
they had to defend themselves from primarily the Japanese but others also,...............they did bloody well too.
i hope yer not trying to say that japan attacked oz
-
WWII was exactly that, if Australian soldiers hadn\'t been in outlying islands defending then the Japanese would have taken the entire South Pacific, just as Nazi Germany would have walked all over the rest of the world after Europe. There was no escape in any country.
Also, Australian soldiers did their bit in WW1, Gallipoli I think, trench warfare and hand to hand nasty stuff.
-
how dare you even suggest that japan contemplated "taking over the world" during WWII
makes me wanna vomit
-
Read my previous post,............ that\'s how I dare.
It was a bad guy free for all WWII, the reason Germany did so well was down to the fact that a lot of Europe is land locked, you just keep piling troops in over land until you\'ve filled all the countries with your own, why do you think they failed to get us over the channel?
If it hadn\'t been for the US (Midway etc) and Australia containing them using the seas as borders they would have gone further.
Edit: Anyway, it was you lot that turned a nice day in Japan into 5000 degree sunshine, justify that. If they weren\'t trying to take over the world (or had ideas to) then what was it for, possibly the largest ever weapons test on live subjects?!
-
:rolleyes:
-
Japan, at one time, was on the verge of a possible invasion of Australia.
Today, China can be a formidable opponent to the US and Australia (and its island states) COMBINED. Jeez people. Just coz they don\'t get into wars with other nations doesn\'t mean they shouldn\'t have a military. Also realise that the Abu Sayef in the southern part of the Philippines and Muslim fundamentalists in Indonesia isn\'t that far from Australia.
Racer, not all Americans are critical of your country\'s efforts. Thanks.
-
dont get me wrong, i appreciate oz sending troops to die for the US\'s efforts
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
Next time you question a countries army please research to find out how useful they have been in the past.
This is why we asked the question. Why should I have to run around the internet to justify the existence of an aussie military when we have people here who are very knowledgable can chime in.
-
Originally posted by mm
dont get me wrong, i appreciate oz sending troops to die for the US\'s efforts
Then you\'ve answered your first query from page 1.
And Vid, if you know full well you\'re going into a subject without the relevant info try not to have so much front and gung-ho-ness with baseless opinions.
I\'ll end with a quote from Ted Stiker,
"War is hell"
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080339
!!!
-
quotes, eh?
Don\'t be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his.
George S. Patton
i also dont see how you can say that to vid when you basically feel that japan wanted world domination, :laughing:
-
Well...all this bickering will be moot when most Iraqis will just drop their weapons and surrender on the spot. Who wants to die for Saddam anyway? Remember how the regular soldiers just surrendered to the Brits when they were just practicing their war games?
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
Then you\'ve answered your first query from page 1.
And Vid, if you know full well you\'re going into a subject without the relevant info try not to have so much front and gung-ho-ness with baseless opinions.
I\'ll end with a quote from Ted Stiker,
"War is hell"
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0080339
!!!
Relevant info? Wht are you freaking talking about. I told you I don\'t know any relavent info. That is why the questions were raised. Sure I made some jokes about the waste of 4000 men and what the heck they can do to help. No one has said word one on what the heck Australia is doing to help in this fight. Does anyone even know what these men are for? I have to assume medics.
-
or meat shields
-
SAS?
-
What makes you think everyone elses soldiers are so un-trained compared to yours. Here\'s how the wars victories/losses pan out.
WW2 - Boom.
Vietnam - Loss (even with a huge budget and better technology)
Gulf 1 - Techology
Somalia 1992 - Loss (when technology was a bit tougher to get hold of and there was ground fighting it was a bloodbath)
Afghanistan - Technology
Gulf 2 - I can only imagine technology will win this war again.
Most soldiers are pretty much of a muchness, it\'s large budgets and technology that win the wars in the end, and all friendly countries will have roughly the same level of advanced weapons, any one of a number of allies could slot into this war and fight just as well as the next.
Plus a lot of US and UK troops will need a break, they\'ve been there for ages, maybe the Ozzies can relieve some of them and make it less work for all.
-
Originally posted by mm
or meat shields
You are right. I found this over at news24
"The Australian contingent includes a 150-member Special Air Service detachment expected to be committed to front-line duties ahead of invading infantry and tank battalions. An Australian squadron of 14 F/A-18 Hornet fighters is also expected to take part. "
-
WW2 - Boom.
you really think the bombing of two cities in japan ended the war?
Somalia 1992 - Loss (when technology was a bit tougher to get hold of and there was ground fighting it was a bloodbath)
please dont even base what you saw in "black hawk down" as factual
Vietnam - Loss (even with a huge budget and better technology)
better technology? yeah, those M16\'s and frag grenades the US soldiers carried were super high tech
-
Compared with a Chinese made AK-47 that is badly maintained and vaguely fires in a straight line.
Add to that F4 Phantoms, cluster bombs and Napalm.
And Black Hawk Down was a good film but I\'ve read more than that.
And, do you really think anyone would want to fight someone with nukes?!
-
Actually, the AK-47 was better than the M16 in vietnam for many reasons. "badly maintained"? didn\'t need it, as for the m16, they were first-gen weapons that need A LOT of maintainence to even fire without jamming. You can pour a handful of mud in an AK, leave it in a locker for a year, kcik the bolt open and it will fire. The only drawback was lack of range due to the larger calibre. They fixed that in \'74 with the AK74.
-
mm: to be fair in his statement regarding somalia. I have a close friend that was in that mistake and it wasnt all that pretty from what he told me.
Chizzy: right on the head!!!