How long could we last out ?

[Pessimistic]

Just Hypothetical.

If the US decided to liberate australia from its regime. How long would we last against the sort of firepower being used in Iraq.

 

[Hawkforce]

Liberal Democracies do not go to war against other Liberal Democracies.

Your question is beneath contempt.

Especially coming from a citizen of a country that sent its navy to turn away Iraqi and Afghani refugees that had been plucked from a sinking boat.

That drew International condemnation.

Were you marching after the Tampa, Pess?

I'm sure you felt outraged. But did you MARCH?

Please tell me what is worse :

Putting people who have travelled across the world, risking death at any moment, into concentration camps in the Aussie desert.

Or sending 2000 Aussie troops to help remove the reason they got on those boats in the first place?

Of course you could say they are equally bad.

But I never saw 200 000 people on the streets of Sydney after the Tampa.

If we aren't willing to take in economic refugees then we MUST address the REASONS that they are economic refugees.

The West is RICH and FREE. THat's why they bypassed every nation, every muslim nation, to come to Australia.

And the electorate said NO.

Here's a very basic principle of the Left - one that seems to have been ignored by many on the Left in this debate:

We are rich - They are Poor.

Unless that balance is redressed we will always have conflict.

SO put your mind at rest - the US would never attack another Liberal Democracy. No Lib Dem would attack another Lib Dem.

So you are safe.

If you don't like it - try a non Lib Dem country for a while.

YOu might find yourself asking how hard it would be for the US to "liberate" you.

Except this time it would be for real.

 

[Pessimistic]

Terrorist acts were unknown here until a year ago.

Please note I said hypothetical. but remember the US has only recently had economic sanctions against NZ and (allegedly) had a PM removed from power.

So hypothetical mifht not be so fanciful.

I remember in the republican debate it was claimed that would leave us open to being run by a despot etc (although I quite like Eddie myself)

So, for want of hurting your sensibilities let's say we have been taken over by a despot (after the country is a republic) using similar methods to saddam. and (as you state) we really really WANT the US to liberate us...

How long would it take.

PS plenty of liberal democracies have gone to war against each other.

 

[grayham]

Australia is actually quite strategically setup. Especially from an attack from the North using low-tech weaponary (foot soldiers).

Assuming they could take Darwin, they are then faced with about 5000 miles of nothing to traverse with very little shelter, only a couple of roads which could be carpet bombed to rubble, and no water or food on-route.
Assuming our air-force was still operational, we could pick them off no problems at all.

The only other way is a naval attach somewhere along the east coast. Slightly easier as the could come in at lowly populated areas, then move into the cities. In summer, bushfires could be used as a legitimate defence and to clear land to exposure them.

In a US force "cowards war" as someone called it, where they lob bombs from safe distances may not be that easy either as it would all have to be ship based which would be more vunerable than land based sources. If we could send our collins class subs to blow them up....

Another thing in Australia favour is its system of government in particular the states. The country can still be governed even if Canberra and Sydney were under attack, as I assume, various state governments (eg Vic) would take up the mantle of federal government if the feds were whipped out. Also this allows a final fall back position of Tasmania as the last bastion.

We'd still get pumped by the US, but should hold our own against nations of similar defence budgets.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Terrorist acts were unknown here until a year ago.

Really? What about 25 years ago - the Hilton bombing.

 

[knuckles]

Originally posted by Fred
Really? What about 25 years ago - the Hilton bombing.

That was actually on Australian soil.

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Fred
Really? What about 25 years ago - the Hilton bombing.

Really ? which group was responsible ?

Pehaps you should also let Mr Howard Know he said the same thing.

Mind you I've never susbscribed to this 'lost innocence' thing. Some pretty horrific things happend in the establishment of the country as a penal colony.

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Terrorist acts were unknown here until a year ago.

What the hell does that have to do with the subject?

Unless you are blaming America for the Bali bombing?

ANd if that's the case then you are so hopelessly out of touch with the reality of Fundamental Islamism that there's little point responding to you.

Cos Bali had NOTHING to do with America.

But lots to do with Western values and Hindu populations.

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Please note I said hypothetical. but remember the US has only recently had economic sanctions against NZ and (allegedly) had a PM removed from power.

So hypothetical mifht not be so fanciful.


Yes, you make a convincing argument. Australia and New Zealand should fear military attack from the US.

This line is where Mantis would be putting her rolleyes smilies.

Originally posted by Pessimistic
I remember in the republican debate it was claimed that would leave us open to being run by a despot etc (although I quite like Eddie myself)

If you had bothered to follow the Republican debate you would know that Eddie was in favour of a President who was agreed by a two thirds majority of parliament.

Parliament is hardly likely to allow a puppet president the power to become a despot.

Originally posted by Pessimistic
So, for want of hurting your sensibilities let's say we have been taken over by a despot (after the country is a republic) using similar methods to saddam. and (as you state) we really really WANT the US to liberate us...

Your analogy is so far removed from anything even remotely discussed during the Republic debate, that it's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Pessimistic
How long would it take.

TO humour you - NOT VERY LONG.

Originally posted by Pessimistic
PS plenty of liberal democracies have gone to war against each other.

Who?




Pess, I appreciate your scepticism - I share it when it comes to domestic politics.

But this is the REAL WORLD.

This is the world where African nations vote LIBYA onto the Human Rights Commission of the UN.

THe world where everyone accuses the US of going after oil, when France and Russia have already signed contracts with Saddam's regime.

The World where the UN allowed Rwanda; Bosnia.

The world that tolerated the Taliban.

North Korea!

I know it's de rigeour to snipe at the US but when you start implying that Australia, or any other Liberal Democracy is at risk of military attack, you are JUST BEING STUPID.

If you are anti war - fine. Argue it. Have an alternative. If there's an alternative the US people can VOTE for it at the next elections.

I am so pharken sick and tired of these petty snipes at America which serve as "anti-war" argument. Especially when the UK is in there llthe way too - and it's Govt is the ideology I support.

GIve me a REASON to think think differently. An ALTERNATIVE.

 

[Pessimistic]

The reason ?

all those 'rogue' states have very little bearing on us here in Oz.

The US has - it owns us, and dictates our foreign policy.

Of course they would protect us - where does their uranium come from ?

You mentioned the fact that the US people can vote out their president.

But we can't. If in your ideal world the US president says who is good or bad - the UN is not needed (unless, of course it comes up with the 'right' decisions) and they appoint themselves as Police, jury and executioner (not always in that order) then perhaps it would be more palateble if WE got to vote for him (or her) as well.


There are fundamental flaws with the US political system. for example not long ago there was a president who got depressed, got drunk and regularly daemanded the 'buttons' so he could Nuke the bastards. Also corruption is rife.

Don't get down on me if we have higher 'standards' for the US than any tinpot country - it's because they have so much influence on us.

Having one superpower is not healthy

 

[The Ewok]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Terrorist acts were unknown here until a year ago.

What terrorist attack has happened on Australian soil in the past year?

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by The Ewok
What terrorist attack has happened on Australian soil in the past year?

So we got excited all for nothing ?

 

[ramjet]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
Please tell me what is worse :

Putting people who have travelled across the world, risking death at any moment, into concentration camps in the Aussie desert.

whatever your views on mandatory detention dont call them 'concetration camps.' couldnt be further from the truth. those centres are not places i would want to be spending time in but they have food, shelter, access to education and health services and a wide variety of leisure activities. im not suggeting its a hotel by any means but reference to them being 'concentration camps' is a pretty disgraceful comment in light of history.

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
The reason ?

all those 'rogue' states have very little bearing on us here in Oz.

That's all you needed to write.

Says it all.

 

[Hawkforce]

Originally posted by ramjet
whatever your views on mandatory detention dont call them 'concetration camps.' couldnt be further from the truth.

Fair call.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Just Hypothetical.

If the US decided to liberate australia from its regime. How long would we last against the sort of firepower being used in Iraq.

On one hand we have a smaller population and smaller military than Iraq and both are less battle hardened. We also have fewer ex-military types and armed militias or tribes who could easily switch to guerilla warfare, and fewer weapons in the civilian population.

On the other hand it has taken the US the best part of months if not years to establish their bridgehead in Kuwait. To land the thousands of tanks etc somewhere in Australia would take considerable time.

If we could keep them from establishing a bridgehead we would be a chance. After that it would be a simple matter of time, how long does it take to drive from Port Headland to Sydney? That is about how long we could hold out.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by Hawkforce
Liberal Democracies do not go to war against other Liberal Democracies.

Your question is beneath contempt.

Especially coming from a citizen of a country that sent its navy to turn away Iraqi and Afghani refugees that had been plucked from a sinking boat.

That drew International condemnation.

Were you marching after the Tampa, Pess?

I'm sure you felt outraged. But did you MARCH?

Please tell me what is worse :

Putting people who have travelled across the world, risking death at any moment, into concentration camps in the Aussie desert.

Yeah, ramjet beat me to it, HF ... not one of your better parallels, but you honored his retort quite well.

As for the refugee situation, I agree with you to a large extent. As a "RICH" nation, we are almost morally and ethically obliged to take these people. We should be able to offer them a future - a respectable and responsible place in our society.

But with one catch. They must be the real deal. Hence the mandatory detention, to do some homework on their histories, as well as to provide some quarantine (don't like using that word - fits in better with animals, but anyhow ..) time. For their own protection, as well as those who have preceded them into this land.

What I have an issue with is the extended time periods it takes for this homework. We must push through the paperwork far quicker. Not 18 months. Not 12 months. Probably not even 6 months. We must also not divide families while incarcerated, and continue to provide them with respectable amenities.

As genuine refugees, they must know that they are safe. As a genuine refugee, they must also realise that their new home is doing all it can to weed out those who may threaten their safety who may also come from their previous homeland. I'm sure they do not want their old oppressors following them into their new life in some guise.

And that's not just a Middle-Eastern, or Asian, or Eastern Europe thing. For instance, imagine we were inundated with a flood of white Zimbabwean farmers who had been oppressed by the Mugabe regime. They would also need to be "processed" (again, not a pleasant word to describe anything that's not a dairy product, but anyhow..). Basically, it's not a racial thing.

What we must NOT do is encourage the creaky, dilapidated fishing boat tragedies in our northern seas. I'm not sure how to overcome this dilemma, as the greedy, ruthless people merchants who run these things seem to be beyond our sphere of control.

We must find another way of allowing them access to our shores.