Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Bob Brown’s Paranoia about the USA

Bob Brown’s Paranoia about the USA

If  Greens like to think that they are a party of the future why is it that their thinking is so much in the past? Take Bob Brown’ intention to make a fool of himself when we have the long awaited visit from Barrack Obama. Not that making a fool of himself is anything new for our Bob, he does so every time he goes on like pork chop about just about everything. The thing that I find truly stupid is that he really seems to believe that being a snivelling coward on a global scale is in  Australia’s best interest.

The far from Christ like Bob Brown (click for link)

The global reality is that this country won’t be attacked by China or by our nearest neighbour either because we make our long-standing alliance with the USA stronger and more overt Islamic Jihadists will still hate us and consider us a viable target (think of the bombing of our embassy in Indonesia and the Bali bombings) so nothing changes in any real sense. The Chinese clearly realise that they can achieve the hegemony that they so clearly crave through the use of their factories and their under-priced currency, Indonesian lacks the ability to invade, or even attack us, India well its far to obsessed with its eternal struggle with Pakistan to even consider attacking us. So just where does Bob see the “increased threat” coming from?

Maybe the Greens leader has been enjoying too much of another kind of “Greens” and that smoke coming from the chimney of his cottage was not in fact coming from a heating fire at all. There must be some reason for his silliness …

Cheers Comrades

NOT!


700 Comments

  1. The scary thing is that about 10% of people actually vote for his party. What are they all on?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    I don’t know for sure Leon but I understand that much of it is grown under lights powered by coal fired electricity, Oh the existential pain and agony that knowing that their intoxicant of choice is a product of Big coal must bring to the Luvvies 😉
    Here is some consciousness raising Greens style:
    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    If (the) Greens like to think that they are a party of the future why is it that their thinking is so much in the past?

    Iain, you’ve summed up in one sentence what I’ve been saying about the Greens for the past year or so – they are NOT a progressive party at all, despite claiming to be so. The Greens are actually retrograde and want to turn back the clock to the days prior to Hawke & Keating when it was a different world and when there was this dream of obtaining some utopian ‘social equality’ by bringing down big business and the wealthy. That was changed (forever) by Keating’s economic reforms and Hawke’s accord with the unions that has seen Australia prosper and break the boom & bust cycle that had always dragged it down. When’s the last recession in Australia? It was over 20 years ago, the one “we had to have”, as Keating correctly pointed out at the time. It was the great correction and changed our ecomomic and social path to what he have today – which is the strongest and fairest economy & society in the world!

    And Brown’s rantings about the big bad USA are indicative of that retrograde mindset. How stupid is this statement on why we don’t want US Marines in Darwin?: ”China has nuclear weapons that can be lobbed on Australia.” What an idiot. Thankfully our Foreign Minister (and soon to be reinstated PM), Kevin Rudd, jumped right on him over that:

    The Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, attacked the Greens, whose platform opposes foreign military bases.

    ”The Green party does not direct Australia’s national security policy, the Green party does not direct Australia’s foreign policy,” Mr Rudd said from Hawaii, where he is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit.

    Well said, Mr PM.

  4. “Well said, Mr PM”

    Ray, did you just have a happy vegemite moment like Rudd did a couple of months ago? Or was that a prediction/endorsement??

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    It was the latter, Leon. As I said in the comment:

    Thankfully our Foreign Minister (and soon to be reinstated PM), Kevin Rudd, jumped right on him over that:

    Btw, I wonder if Craigy et al supports Bob Brown’s loopy reaction to Obama?

  6. JM says:

    > There must be some reason for his silliness

    Try sovereignty. Brown is right to be concerned, this is the first time a significant foreign military force will be on Australian soil.

    Remember, as Churchill once said “Nations don’t have permanent friends, only permanent interests”

    Once you have US troops on your soil, it is impossible to get rid of them. Ask the Japanese about Okinawa, or the Germans more generally.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    What a stupid analogy JM The Japanese and the Germans both fought bloody wars against the USA and its allies and they were both soundly defeated after years of bloody conflict so its not unexpected that the USA has maintained a presence in both countries. Do You honestly believe that the economic strength of both countries would be so resilient had it not been for the continued presence of the USA to defuse their long-standing imperial ambitions? Both countries have never been so strong and prosperous as they have since the the post war period thanks largely to the way that The USA remade their societies in the wake of their defeat and surrender.

    And You are wrong about it being impossible to get the USA out as well because that is precisely what happened here and here

  8. Richard Ryan says:

    AMERICA’S greatness was built on slavery and arms deals————thanks to the rejects from all over Europe, who came in boats. IF Abbott was there then, would his mantra be,—– stop the boats?.As for the Yanks in the N.T.,all I can say is lock up your daughters——and wives, for some unknown reason Aussie girls cannot resist the sexual advances of these Yankee doodles. I seen it all at the base in the Philippines—-Subic Bay, I likened it to one big brothel for the sailors, with girls coming and going 24 hours a day. I support Brown’s paranoia. This will be a God-send for the Terrorists, a chance for them to have a crack at a soft-target. Iain your unnatural love affair with all things American, is a cause for concern. The game’s up for the USA.

  9. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    To be frank I don’t have an “unnatural love” for all things American at all there are aspects of their culture that I find truly fascinating but my overall assumption is that they are generally more on the side of light than the side of darkness. As for terrorists, well we are already targets so what has changed?

  10. Sax says:

    Oh you pacifist cry-hards. You leave me with a positively fuzzy feeling that makes me just want to heave sometimes.
    Reality Check time !

    You know why the yanks are popular with our girls ? Time to wake up and sniff what you’re shovelling guys. They like the yanks because they don’t show up to dates half p*ssed, they dress well, are well mannered, observe (for the most part) old style traits that parents like. That is the reality of it. When aussie men stop showing up to take girls out p*ssed, with all of their mates, and actually begin to treat our girls with a bit of respect, and give them the attention they need, and deserve, then perhaps us guys might improve our reputations a little.

    BTW ? Yanks have been serving in Australia for sixty plus years, and that situation won’t change any time soon. We are obliged to accept them under treaties such as Anzus, and a few others that come to mind. Having served with them, I would sooner serve with a yank, than a pom anyday. (sorry Iain 😉 )

    Ah Richard ?

    AMERICA’S greatness was built on slavery and arms deals

    Actually, Americas greatness came about through people such as Lincoln, who attempted to stop those atrocities ? That’s a greater judge of its character, as well as its willingness to go headlong into areas, that the rest of the world cringed, and woosed out. Think through history of the last sixty odd years, just here in the pacific, and its not hard to see how different things would be, without the yanks ?
    You also forget, that Australia was nothing more than a giant jail cell ? Hmm, remember that ?

    Bob Brown has no idea as to how politics works in the Pacific/Asia circle. He never has. He comes out with outlandish, unsupported statements, and winds up the “thong brigade” (such as above), attempting to come out looking the hero. Instead, to anyone who has served, knows the politics of the region, and has at least an ounce of common sense, knows it is all b/s.

    Geez, I wish people would wake up to this bloody green brainless goblin ?

  11. Richard Ryan says:

    AH WELL! Let’s rephrase, AMERICA’S great democracy was founded on slavery.

  12. JM says:

    Well Iain there are any number of other examples. For a more complex one try Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s only permitted the US in on condition they would leave after Kuwait was liberated. They stayed.

    On the grounds that Saddam was still there – despite the fact they didn’t even try to get rid of him at the time, they had no mandate to remove him and Saddam was never part of the deal.

    And even after they did eventually remove Saddam in 2003, they still stayed. They’re still there.

    And in anycase, do you

    a.) think it’s ok to have a foreign military presence on our soil

    b.) quite so sure that they wouldn’t use those Marines against our interests if it were in theirs?

    c.) going to contradict Churchill on a point he in universally regarded as being right on?

  13. Sax says:

    Once you have US troops on your soil, it is impossible to get rid of them. Ask the Japanese about Okinawa, or the Germans more generally.

    You want to go on the rampage, invading country after country JM, in an attempt to rule the world, what do you expect ? That’s the price of getting your ass kicked, and losing.

    Try sovereignty. Brown is right to be concerned, this is the first time a significant foreign military force will be on Australian soil.

    Possibly, but with the rise in religious zealotry, and terrorism in the area, seems like a pretty good idea actually ? After all, our military has been massivley underfunded, and under supplied for decades. Add to that the economic boost of thousands of servicemen and women spending their pay packets in this country ? What’s wrong with that ?

    Remember, as Churchill once said “Nations don’t have permanent friends, only permanent interests”

    The US, as well as the remainder of NATO has no direct interest in the area. The only interest is anything that would destabalise peace in the region. The rise of fundamentalism, and radical Islam threatens that peace.

  14. JM says:

    Keep drinking the Kool Aid guys. It looks like it’s still working even after 50 years

    Sorry you disrepect your own country so much that you think it is danger of imminent collapse from an “enemy within” that can only be averted by the presence of a foreign military trained and equipped to strike at any moment.

  15. Sax says:

    It is sad that you see through fogged up glasses JM, really.
    It must be wonderful, to look through those utopian glasses of yours.
    The facts of the situation are :
    1. We live in a region currently going through massive religious upheval. The rise in religious terrorism/martydom should be noted even by pacifists such as yourself. What do we do ? Sit there, offer them a cold beer, a telly to watch the footy, and hope they don’t bomb the crap out of us ?

    2. Currently, there are about eighty odd thousand serving members in the ADF. Hardly enough if the s*it were to hit the fan ? I love you peace mongerers, coming in with comments like yours. There are countries to the north west, with populations in the hundreds of millions, that eye off our wonderful land with envy. If they had boats that would get this far, we might be speaking a different language. Your apparent view that it would never happen, is arrogant, uneducated, and plain bloody dangerous. The position of a base in the region would give these people eying off our land, the much needed reality check. East Timor should ring a bell for you, as a recent example ?

    We are talking about preventative measures here. What is wrong with that JM, seriously ?

  16. JM says:

    Sax, I’m making an argument about sovereignty which Iain seems to discount entirely. I presume you (and he) vote and are concerned about how the government reacts and behaves to secure the future of this country and its citizens.

    By definition, it’s actions – informed by those votes of yours – are constrained or influenced, perhaps unduly, in any circumstance where the government is unable to exercise full freedom of action and making of decisions. The presence of foreign military forces by definition provides such a constraint.

    And this new arrangement is open ended.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t form and maintain alliances when it is our interests to do so. It does mean however that we should hold very dearly the right to say to other nations “no, this is an area where we have the final say”. And we should always have the right to say to a foreign power “you know what? On this one, our interests aren’t aligned with yours. We don’t agree”

    After all, defence is the primary obligation of a government.

  17. Sax says:

    Sorry JM, it is pretty hard to see your point. It is pretty vague. If I read your comment correctly, you are saying that foreign (US) bases, if placed here, are nothing more than embassy like. That being sovereign US territory ? If that be your premise, well, it is a bit late to complain about that. There are already a number of US bases on our land, US sovereign territory, and have been for thirty plus some years ?

    You are correct in saying that it may be a “constraint”, but we have to balance that against the outward projection of the defence capabilities, and strength, that the new base projects. Isn’t the latter advisable ?

    Also, we have had “open ended” exchange programs with the US in the ADF for decades. I have served with not only US servicemen and women, but also British, Japanese, NZ and so on, many times. The exchange offers benefits to all that take part.

    To ensure safety and security that balance must be found between strength, defence, and freedom. Wasn’t it Jefferson that said “the price of freedom, is eternal vigilence”

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Heaven in a hand basket JM the idea is to have the ability to store materials and equipment ready for use outside Australia, not to maintain a standing army on our soil, as anyone would think that they are from the way that you are going on! In theses days of mass air travel it makes far more sense to keep your actual fighting men on home soil and quickly deploy them by air, logistically all you then need is the ability to get their equipment and supplies to the war zone in an expeditious manner.

  19. Richard Ryan says:

    We may join them in invasions of other countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. But I don’t like the idea of Australia been used as a launching pad to attack other countries, like Iran, but then we are already doing that, from Pine Gap, US territory.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    JM, how do you know what the purpose of the US base in Darwin will be? You said “our interests aren’t aligned (with the US’s)”, so what do you think the US’s interests are in this case?

  21. GD says:

    Yes, Ray, good question for the crazies. I’d especially like to hear Richard’s answer. I’m in that sort of mood. 🙂

  22. Richard Ryan says:

    They don’t have a good reputation in Japan, with rapes, murders, etc.etc,Ah well what can I say, God Bless The United States Of Australia, as they dance in tune to the beat of the American tom-toms, and become more American then the Americans themselves. AH yes——love is blind.

  23. GD says:

    What country do you like, or respect, Richard? Obviously not Australia or the US. And what country would you like to live in? Obviously not Australia or the US.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    Very humorous, RR, but I’m actually looking for a more serious answer. I’m not sure what real problem Bob Brown (& JM) seem to have with a US base in Darwin. We’ve had them before and, so far, we’ve been okay. Where and what is the danger? (please don’t say, as Bob did, that the Chinese might nuke us)

  25. GD says:

    don’t say, as Bob did, that the Chinese might nuke us

    Is Bob warning us about the ‘yellow peril’?

    He’s even crazier than RR.

  26. Sax says:

    RR has been reading the “Communist Guide To Relations with the West” again.
    China is one of the main reasons as to why this should go ahead.
    Don’t you just love his description of the actions, as “invasions” ? In all instances in the last few years, the only way the US has got involved, is by decrees issued by the UN. But, people like RR expect everyone to just sit back, watch the bloodshed, and utter tsk tsk, and let the situation control or correct itself. Funnily enough, that is how the trouble starts in the first place.

    C’mon, RR, take a whiff of what you’re shovelling. We live in a world, where there are blood thirsty, and ego starved tyrants. It is up to the rest of the world, to bring these tossers into line, and say as a planet, that is unacceptable, and won’t be tolerated. But, you say that people/countries that have the guts to stand up to these tyrants are what ? Someone has to do it.

    As for Pine Gap, you have no idea. You are talking a whole heap of s*it.
    You may not know it, but we live in a community of countries. Part of the benefit of living in that community, is the coming together to provide security for that community. Security, that allows for such things as freedom of speech. Especially relevent here, a freedom of speech that allows people like you to slag off those that provide that freedom.

  27. Angel says:

    When did we become at war with China? A 10 year old knows the answer to that question yet 10% of the country have elected an idiot that doesn’t.

  28. JM says:

    For heaven’s sake!

    > Sorry JM, it is pretty hard to see your point. It is pretty vague. If I read your comment correctly, you are saying that foreign (US) bases, if placed here, are nothing more than embassy like.

    No I’m not saying they’re embassy like. They are quite different.

    Look, military control of your own territory is fundamental to sovereignty and is the basis of the State, not just the modern State but the State since tribal times. Embassies have nothing like military control and are simply here at our sufferance which can be withdrawn at any time, hence the term “persona non gratia”. The bases already here are “joint facilities” and do not entail surrender of military control or sovereignty.

    If you don’t understand that fundamental fact there is no hope for you..

  29. Sax says:

    It is still difficult to see your point here JM ?

    For a start, currently, there are NO US bases on Australia soil. YET !
    There are however, US facilities here. Of those, some are joint, a couple purely US. That is the cost of being involved in such alliances. There are good points, and there are bad. At least in outward appearances.

    As for persona non grata, sure, that only applies to usually diplomatic personnel. Usually those that have been rejected by the country hosting the embassy, for whatever reason.

    But, again, you have to remember, that Australia is a signatory to quite a few alliances/treaties, in which the US is the main signatory. Part of that deal, is to assist in the provision of security, both militarily as well as civilian, on a regional basis. That means that we share facilities, not only here, but all over the region. I can’t see your problem with that ?
    It also requests of us, provision of facilities and personnel, to set up those facilities or bases. A couple of examples perhaps, Okinawa, as well as Subic Bay in the Phillipines another.
    Surely, the overall security of the region relies on such cooperation ? I don’t see what you guys are complaining about, really !

  30. JM says:

    Sax you’re all over the place.

    Yes there are no US bases yet. Yes all that is here are “joint facilities”. No that means they are NOT US only.

    Yes embassies are different from bases. Yes “persona non-gratia” means that the host country has rejected the person concerned, ie. they are no longer willing to host them as a guest.

    No the ANZUS alliance does not require us to host US military bases (or joint facilities for that matter) only the “consult” on matters of joint interest.

    Perhaps the vagueness is in your own (lack of) understanding of these issues.

  31. JM says:

    Ray: You said “our interests aren’t aligned (with the US’s)”

    Our interests have often been misaligned with those of the US. Take a single long running example, Australian access to the US sugar market. At present we have virtually none. For about 10 years the US pressured us to accept a free trade agreement but we always refused on the grounds that it wasn’t in our interests (sugar restrictions being one of them, along with a recognition that it would be impossible for a US administration to get lifting of the restrictions through Congress)

    This lasted until Howard saw a chance to “wedge” Latham and said he’d accept a Free Trade Agreement if sugar restrictions (amongst other things) were lifted. The US Administration, salivating, promised him the world.

    And gave him nothing until Howard, realizing he’d only succeeded in wedging himself, went ahead anyway.

    5 years later? The outcomes have been more beneficial to the US than to Australia (the imbalance in trade increasing the US’s favor by about 12%). And still no sugar access.

    That’s just one example.

  32. Sax says:

    I’m not the one all over the place JM.
    You still haven’t specified what your bloody beef is, about the US on Australian soil is in the first place ?
    BTW, I know of at least 2 “US Only” installations on Australian soil, and I have been out for nearly twenty odd years now. Those two aren’t secret, anyone with a pair of eyes and ears knows about them, as to why you don’t, who knows. S*it, they’re in the bloody phone book !

    Perhaps my vagueness JM is because both David and I, know (knew), what’s “there”, and what’s not.

    ANZUS (as well as other treaties), don’t require/demand anything from their signatories, only military assistance if required. That’s implied. But, what these treaties do, is they “imply” a cooperation between the signatories for such things as bases, installations, etc. Not only for defence either. For all sorts of matters. Law and order, science sharing, technical knowledge sharing and so on.

    I just love you feel good peacenicks. You whine like hell about what is out there, and when it all hits the fan, whine even louder when, and if, the protections aren’t there.

    C’mon man, look back at what you have said, it doesn’t make any sense ?

  33. Richard Ryan says:

    The only country to ever use weapons of mass destruction——America. Over 100,000 innocent people were wiped of the face of the earth, in a blink of an eye——-mass genocide. That was the first drop on Japan, the second drop on Japan, not sure. Sixty years ago, my school teacher got down on his knees,in the classroom and cursed the Americans for this shameful deed. The business of America is business.China is on it’s way to be a super-power, and I’m learning to use chop-sticks——–before it becomes compulsory. And finally China has not invaded any country, that I know of.

  34. Sax says:

    BTW, forgot to comment on this one JM…

    By definition, it’s actions – informed by those votes of yours – are constrained or influenced, perhaps unduly, in any circumstance where the government is unable to exercise full freedom of action and making of decisions. The presence of foreign military forces by definition provides such a constraint.

    Ok, to be fair in an attempt to see where the hell you are coming from, how does it constrain the host power, i.e. US ?
    How the hell, does a base in a country inhibit or constrain the government of that country ?
    For there to be a base allowed in a country such as ours, it means that the countries invovled in such a decision are like minded, have the same outcomes and aims in mind.

    Again, apart from not being able to build on the area of land concerned, what constraints are you on about ? Don’t see it ?

    What about the much needed civilian jobs, that the establishment of such a base would provide ?

    If you think that the establishment of such a new base in Australia would make us a target, sorry mate I have news for you, we already ARE a target.

  35. Sax says:

    If they hadn’t RR, we would all be speaking Japanese right about now.
    What about Japanese atrocities through WW2 ? The hundreds of thousands of troops killed by them ? Forget about them ? The torture, the starvations, the general contempt of everyone else in the world. The japs weren’t going to stop. The bomb did that, quite efficiently. War is not pretty, the japs were not innocents as you portray. They were nasty, real bloody nasty.

  36. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, JM, I understand that we can’t always have the same interests as the USA. But these were the two questions I asked you:

    1. How do you know what the purpose of the US base in Darwin will be?
    2. You said “our interests aren’t aligned (with the US’s [in this particular case])”, so what do you think the US’s interests are in this case?

  37. Iain Hall says:

    JM won’t give you a straight answer on that Ray 🙄

  38. Our security interests are certainly aligned with the US. One helluva lot more than our security interests would be with China, that is for certain.

  39. Sax says:

    Looks like your valid question didn’t warrant even a reply so far Ray ? Different time zone perhaps ? Maybe too hard, JM maybe sleeping on it ? 😉

    I’ll try to give you an answer though.
    I think it is to replace their base in the Phillipines, Subic Bay, that closed in 91 or there abouts.

    Steve’s comment is also spot on as well I think ?

    The yanks want a presence in the western pacific/asia region. Especially with China about to begin stretching it’s ego perhaps ? Also, relatively close to the troubles that may be brewing in places such as Pakistan etc ? Who knows, but Darwin would give that. Also it wants that base to be in a “friendly” country. Darwin obliges rather nicely I think.

    I still don’t see your problem with all this JM. To give up political control and ownership of perhaps a couple of hundred acres, is a pretty cheap price to pay, for the security of knowing that the majority of the Pacific/Indian Ocean fleet will be securing the place, calling it home ?

  40. Angel says:

    The Greens would love to cut our defence force down to that of New Zealand

  41. At the moment our Celestial cousins need only drop Two weapons from space to neutralise Yankee Doodle’s capacity in their environs, one onto Okinawa, & one onto Guam.

    Hence Yankee Doodle seeks to spread the risk. Understandable. They don’t trust the Celestials any more than anyone else does.

    China: A powerful nation without any allies. Whose foreign outlook has a whole lot more in common with Otto von Bismarck than it does with 21st century liberal democracy. Who wouldn’t be wary of them?

  42. JM says:

    Sax: Ok, to be fair in an attempt to see where the hell you are coming from, how does it constrain the host power, i.e. US ?

    You’re a complete wacker. How is the US the “host power” of a base located in Darwin, sovereign territory of Australia?

    Do you normally have problems with semantic logic – ie. the plain meaning of words – in other areas Sax?

  43. Ray Dixon says:

    JM, what is the purpose of the proposed (but yet to be announced) US marine ‘base’ (if you can call it that – reports suggest it’s not) in Darwin, in your opinion?

    And how is it (according to you) “not aligned with our interests”?

    Come on, stop avoiding the question.

  44. Sax says:

    Do you normally have problems with the English language JM ?
    If I’d have meant the US I would have written “the US”. I was referring to US, as in Australia ?

    My mistake, I thought I was dealing with a person with possibly just an ounce of common sense, and logic. Obviously not ?
    😦

  45. JM says:

    Ray: so what do you think the US’s interests are in this case?

    I’d expect the US’s interests – military, trade and commercial – are as aligned as they have been since Commodore Perry shelled Tokyo:- we’ll use the full force of our military to bomb the s*** out of you unless you allow full access to our trade and commercial interests.

    That’s been their foreign policy since the 19th Century and I haven’t seen any sign of it changing one iota since.

  46. Sax says:

    Obviously Ray, the question was too difficult ?

  47. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, it looks like we crossed posts, JM. Thanks for your answer (sort of … at last).

    Hmm, let’s see … so you think the US is wanting a ‘base’ in Darwin to launch attacks on Asia? Fair dinkum?

    You’re out of your tree mate.

  48. Sax says:

    Oh, what a load of bloody crap JM.
    The entire western world, after ww2 opened up their markets to Japan especially to help get it back on it’s feet. It has beaten us all over the head with it ever since. At least until the last ten or so years, when the Yen became so valuable, that they nearly put themselves out of business. Why do you think items that Japan used to be the leaders in, are now made and sold from Korea and China ?
    You will have to do better with that, personal shots aside.

  49. JM says:

    Ray: JM, what is the purpose of the proposed (but yet to be announced) US marine ‘base’ (if you can call it that – reports suggest it’s not) in Darwin, in your opinion?

    It has been announced. I’d expect the purpose to be to promote and protect United States interests. What else is the purpose of US military power?


    And how is it (according to you) “not aligned with our interests”?

    You must be slow on the uptake. I’ve already explained this. The sole purpose of the US military is to promote and protect US national interests.

    As is the sole purpose of the Australian military forces.

    Do you guys have a problem with fundamental concepts or something?

  50. JM says:

    Sax: If I’d have meant the US I would have written “the US”.

    Wriggle as much as you like, claiming a subtle pun won’t get you out of abject subjection of your own interests to those of a foreign power. You’ve expressed yourself at length on that topic.

  51. JM says:

    Ray: so you think the US is wanting a ‘base’ in Darwin to launch attacks on Asia?

    Dunno. I’m not privy to US military strategy.

    But you gotta ask yourself – what else are they doing there? Mowing the lawns? The old saying “Send the Marines” is not without content you know.

    Darwin is a strategic location, so much so that the Australian military has been refocussing its deployments on Darwin and the north over the last few years.

    So why is the US so interested in having deployable combat troops located there? You guys need to get a grip on these issues.

  52. Sax says:

    As have you, and you continue to misconstrue all that has been written, to your own benefit. As to what that benefit/premise is, who knows ?

    BTW ? WTF is this in plain english ?

    won’t get you out of abject subjection of your own interests to those of a foreign power.

    If you are attempting to prove you academic “smarts”, I would prefer my “street” smarts anyday.

    As much as it must irritate you, Australia lives in a wider community. Due to our large size, and little population, we have not the financial resources repel an offensive from a nearby power that is eying off our natural and other wealth. To assist in our security, other than do a China, and enforce five year olds to do basic training and walk around with guns, we have not the population to do the job. So, to help in our defence, we have formed alliances, with those countries that think like we do. Ever heard of NATO, perhaps SEATO, do they ring a bell or two ?

    You’re another one who, when they get their arguments shot down, rather than being mature about it, skulk off and change the subject. C’mon man, grow a pair, and admit that you are wrong. Then we can all move on.

  53. Sax says:

    Again, remember the closure of Subic Bay ?
    Hmm, could that be a reason as to why Darwin, or more generally Australia was chosen ?

  54. JM says:

    Sax: Ever heard of NATO, perhaps SEATO

    Neither of which we are members of. And neither are the French, interestingly enough.

    Are simple issues too complex for you guys?

  55. Ray Dixon says:

    The sole purpose of the US military is to promote and protect US national interests

    Which – according to you – is to launch attacks on Asia !!??!!

    Why don’t you cut the condescending bullshit, JM, and just admit that you are making it all up, scaremongering and generally carrying on like a paranoid loon? You know nothing more of the proposal than I or anyone else does. Btw, it has NOT been officially announced yet, nor explained. Please explain though, when & how having a USA military presence on Australian soil has caused us any harm or grief? I think you’re just pissing in the wind mate.

  56. Sax says:

    Obviously, one who doesn’t know what SEATO means.
    Want to do a google, or do you want to embarrass yourself further ?

    Touche Ray. Not often we agree, but can’t argue with that.
    😉

  57. Sax says:

    Also, don’t forget, as I stated earlier, we have US presence in Australia, have had since the late sixties. You’re a bit late to whine about it now aren’t you JM ?

  58. Sax says:

    Obviously he googled SEATO
    Oops !
    🙄

  59. JM says:

    Sax, Ray

    Why don’t you guys admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. The purpose of a surveillance operation like Pine Gap is to spy not to engage.

    The purpose of the Marines is entirely different. It is to “engage and destroy the enemy” – that is the actual, stated objective of the US Military.

  60. Ray Dixon says:

    You’re just talking in generalities, JM, not specifics. If that’s all you’ve got to support your anti-US theories, I’m going to bed … yawn.

  61. Angel says:

    Australia is not the enemy of the marines so why not have them here. Why would we turn away our allies, enemies I could understand.

  62. JM says:

    Ray, for gods sake – what can be more specific and less of a generality than an order to a military organization to “engage and destroy” the enemy?

    This is far from an anti-US theory, these are actual statements and doctrine of the US military itself. I’d be far more worried if any army in the world had an instruction like “go forth and mow lawns”

    These are perfectly reasonable statements that are absolutely in line with the purpose and mission of a military organization. Period.

    If you think otherwise, you’re in la-la land.

  63. GD says:

    Angel, JM and RR would probably welcome forces from China or Iran here, but never the US. In fact, the US was out of line bombing Japan in WW2 according to many lefties. Those poor Japs back in the 1940s, how dare big bad America stop their wonderful little war.

    To top it off, Bob Brown, our real PM, reckons we don’t need any help from anyone. The Gaia fairies will take care of us.

    Your video of NZ’s defence was classic.

  64. Richard Ryan says:

    SO TRUE! Cut out all the Yankee propaganda———the reason for a base in the North of Australia, is to launch attacks on our Asian friends, in the near future. The myth that the two weapons of mass destruction dropped on Japan ended the war is all baloney. The Japs were already beaten——the two atomic bombs were dropped because it’s in the Yanks genes, to test, to kill and they like killing, just ask the original inhabitants of that continent. GD has been watching too many John Wayne movies, is that not so partner?,——–“the only good injun is a dead injun”! In the art of lying you can’t beat the Yanks, where invading other countries is concerned. The WAR on TERRORISM is a no win situation, as history has proven.

  65. Sax says:

    Spot on Angel !

    Wow Richard. Brave words. I wouldn’t repeat them anywhere near a WW2 vet or an RSL. I doubt whether you would have legs to walk home on. The Japs were nothing short of brutal in ww2. They had to be stopped. If you believe different, you are sadly deluded, and as such need to get your head out of your ass, and into perhaps a couple of history books. If that is too hard a task, perhaps a quick video or two ? Every analyst worth a salt has agreed, that the dropping of the bombs, although horrific, shortened the war by years.

    The WAR on TERRORISM is a no win situation, as history has proven.

    That’s bullsh*t. A few names for you. Idi Amin ? Bin Laden ? Perhaps Suddam Hussein ? They ring a bell ? It is near impossible to defend against some drugged out whacko kid, who has been conditioned to strap c4 to his chest, to go into a plaza and kill everyone in sight.
    You have to go after the cowardly leaders, that suck in their country’s youth to do their bidding for them. The above examples show that. You can’t go every everyone, but you can go after those that rally their youth to do their biddng for them. The cowards that hide out in caves ?

    You guys obviously hate the yanks. For what reason I don’t know. You have also obviously been brainwashed by the radical islam propaganda. Pretty sad.

    Keeping the topic in mind finally, Bob Brown has no power base, or major support base. He is nothing more than a sh*t stirrer, and has always been nothing more than that. He thinks now that he is in a coalition, he has power. He is pretty deluded. Both he and Dullard are still in their honeymoon period. They haven’t had their first fight yet. Wait till that happens, and watch him get slapped down so fast, his ass will be bruised for months.

  66. Richard Ryan says:

    Bob Brown saved the Franklin river——how the memories of the rightards fade into the clouds of fantasy.

  67. Sax says:

    And how long are you leftards going to continue to remind us of it. He didn’t do it on his own btw. What about his foot soldiers, his movement, who did all the hard work for him, and for which he took all the credit for ?

    Actually, I was waiting for someone to bring that up, in his defence.

    I am not denying he is fluent in the ways of the ‘force’. Hell, not a tough decision to make. It was/is a world heritage area ffs. He is a politician, and not a very good one at that. He is a Greens senator. Perhaps he should stick to what he knows, and leave the defence of this country to those who at least have served, instead of spending their time on parliament’s steps burnging flags ?

  68. Richard Ryan says:

    MAYBE we need Bob again for a blockade of the base in Darwin——–Better still,declare it sacred land——-get the original inhabitants on to this. Yes that’s the way to go——-declare it a sacred site. You don’t see the Kiwi’s open their country to war bases, of course they had the balls to not allow nuclear ships into N.Z. waters.

  69. Sax says:

    Kiwis haven’t got the land.
    I think there are already military bases on Aboriginal land, so you’re a bit late there.
    BTW, you still haven’t said what is your problem with this anyway. You have ducked that simple question for days ? What’s your beef ?
    Is it your hatred of the US, the military, or what ?
    What has scared the crap out of you about all of this ?

  70. Sax says:

    BTW, the business’ that would be salivating over the prospects of more customers, would probably shoot him, before he got the rally started ?

  71. Richard Ryan says:

    I like the foot soldiers term——-politicians send the foot-soldiers to fight their wars, that will be the day the foot-soldiers turn their guns on their politicians, and I can tell you a lot of Vietnam vets, love that idea. Shalom, Richard Ryan

  72. Sax says:

    You really are showing your ignorance of how it all works Richard. Added to that, there would be a lot of soldiers that may think like that, but they are trained, and trained hard to let ideas such as that pass through their ears, without being baited, to act. Never happen.

    Again, you refuse to give our serving men and women the respect they deserve. They love their country, regardless of it’s dickhead politicians, enough to put their lives on the line for it. What are you doing for your country, apart from slagging off at it ?

    You also continue to duck the hard questions as to your point of view. All that does, is lower your reputation, and has destroyed your entire argument.

  73. Damage says:

    I looked up the meaning of “Ryan” and it means “Young Royalty”

    Of course royamty are the heads of state.

    Richard abreviates to Dick.

    Richard Ryan ergo = {edit}

    Here’s the thing {edit}
    The politicians who sent the vietnam vets to war are no longer in power. It was 40 years ago.
    They have every right to be pissed off at them if that’s the way they want to play the game, but no right to wish ill on the current bunch – even despite their quality as politicians.

    (No need for the abuse, Damage)

  74. Richard Ryan says:

    Most of the guys I know, are in Iraq for the money, $80,000 more or less for a six month stint tax free——–don’t give us all that bullshit about love of country, I have worked in the Australian defence force as a civilian for over twelve years. The Aussie dollars speaks all languages. As Helen Keller once said, “Militarism is one of the chief bulwarks of capitalism, and the day militarism is undermined, capitalism will fail”. An old Aussie told me when the Japs were on the verge of invasion, you could pick up a house on the Sydney harbour for a song, the locals deserted like rats on a sinking ship, but houses in the Blue Mountains were quite expensive, his words not mine.Finally America does not speak for me——Shalom Richard Ryan.

  75. Sax says:

    If they didn’t love their country, or their job, why the hell would they allow themselves to be put in to a position to be bombed, shot at, or even worse ? If you say it is all for the money, you’re wrong. The money is good, but so it bloody should be, balancing itself against the risk, and working conditions these guys and gals have to endure ? Wouldn’t you agree ?

    Actually, truth be known, your mates (?) like mine are not only there for the money, but also for the action. I’ve served, as has David, the down time between gigs can really drive you nuts. Stuck in some office somewhere. Usually doing an upgrade course or similar. They love to send you on courses. So, when something happens, of course you raise your hand, if for nothing, but to get away from the dammed courses. The money ? Hell, that’s just a bonus. Don’t forget, that has only happened in the last few years, after massive poaches by private industry stealing all the talent out of the service. The government finally woke up to itself, and began to offer “real” money for our servicemen and women.

    You still continue to duck the main questions, so I will leave it with you and this.
    You continue to use the Jewish term of “Shalom”, so here is a thought.

    I wonder if your attitude would be any different, if the 67 fiasco were to start up again.
    Would your hatred of the yanks be the same ? Somehow, I doubt it.
    Your full of it.

  76. Angel says:

    Richard, you have worked on Army bases? You need your pass revoked and seriously taken as a threat to the security of this country. So you are that cranky old man behind the counter of the clothing store who swaps new boots for the old smelly, bush weary ones handed in by our boys in the forces. Stop taking it out on them and get some real qualifications, not a walk off the street civilian who dreads his menial job day in / day out. No wonder you despise them coming back in the country and handing you their packs to store on a shelf, whilst talking about their plans now back in this country. Buy a new car, take a holiday, what else should a person do after returning from months in the desert dodging mines.

    As for the Japs, Sax could not be more correct. They were brutal. My grandfather spent months underground at Tobruk then fought the Japanese at Buna. He would not talk of it. You seem to have no problem explaining it though Richard. Try telling any survivors of Pearl Harbour that the war was already over.

    Those that fought for our country in WW2 are dwindling in numbers. This is where cowards like you Richard rise up and dispute what they went through, undermine their efforts, and try to twist history to your own ideal. You are full of it.

  77. GD says:

    This is where cowards like you Richard rise up and dispute what they went through, undermine their efforts, and try to twist history to your own ideal

    Excellent and very worthy comment, Angel.

  78. GD says:

    Actually, I don’t think RR could get a job exchanging boots on a defence base. With his attitude all they’d trust him with is cleaning the latrines.

  79. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES! Terrorism, the poor man’s war. WAR, the rich man’s war. Now how are things going in Afghanistan? Another Vietnam, I would say, you don’t need a PhD in warfare, to know that force and lies, are the principles of invasions, and don’t give us the bullshit about bringing democracy to Afghanistan, but then as Adolf Hitler said, ” In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters but victory. By the way, still have my pass,OK—-armchair warriors.

  80. JM says:

    Kool Aid’s going cheap these days I see.

  81. Sax says:

    I think I have figured out all the angst from you RR
    Did you apply for the forces and get knocked back by any chance ?
    Don’t feel so bad. Nearly 70 per cent get knocked back. That would explain your anger at the services, and those that have served though.

    Again, you are forgetting that our troops are sent by government of the day. They don’t send themselves ?
    Where is your anger at them, sadly missing I see.

    With his anger GD, he wouldn’t pass the psych test ?

  82. Angel says:

    Maybe he helped them with target practice at the wets, simulation Richard style- not actually a terrorist but gets off on the idea.

  83. Angel says:

    “..still have my pass,OK—”
    That would be a blatent lie Richard if you are no longer employed there.

  84. GD says:

    It’s funny how leftards like JM have to support fools like RR, sharing as they do the same ideology.

  85. JM says:

    GD, you don’t know what my ideology is (if any). Keep your insults and imputations to yourself.

  86. Angel says:

    GD – I didn’t get the Kool Aid comment, or is it just more of the insanity coming out?

  87. Richard Ryan says:

    READ YOUR Australian History. the Japanese were insulted by the white Australian policy. Is Australia now an Asian country?

  88. Angel says:

    Ha Ha, is that how the war started, our White Australia policy?

    You guys are getting worse.

  89. GD says:

    Yes, that was quite an insult, suggesting you share the same ideology as RR. Unfortunately, time and time again you confirm it.

  90. GD says:

    Of course, it was our fault, Angel. We offended the Japs back in the 1930s by not having an open door policy. Instead they had to try to invade us. How thoughtless of Australia. Perhaps if we’d had a Bob Brown back then we could have just handed the country over to the Japs, and saved all that kerfuffle. Thank goodness lefties like RR are here to set us straight.

  91. JM says:

    GD, I don’t. I never encountered RR before this thread. Put his words back in his mouth, not in mine.

    Now it is quite apparent that none of you clowns are capable of holding a serious opinion on this matter, only infantile ones. On that topic I note that my opinion is shared by one Owen Harries a hawk, a luminary of Australian political thought and not someone I often agree with.

    You guys however, can go back to the play pen now.

  92. Angel says:

    Time to play GD

  93. GD says:

    Another good video find by Angel. That would, of course, be banned today by the PC crowd as being discriminatory. JM, read back through you comments on this thread and you’ll see that you are in agreement with many of RR’s crazy ravings.

    What shall we play today, Angel? Laughing at lefties? We played that yesterday, but it was so much fun, perhaps we should do it again.

  94. Angel says:

    Love Stevie Nicks, and still in theme

  95. GD says:

    I prefer this sort of lie.

  96. Sax says:

    Another one that must be lacking some common sense JM.
    Never heard of him. ?

    Having an opinion is one thing, criticising another’s, without specifying/backing up the criticisms, is just showing arrogance, immaturity, and lack of overall knowledge of what is being discussed.

    Why is it, the most severe criticism always comes from those, that at the first sign of trouble, would not be seen for the dust from their heels, as they head for their hideouts in the hills.

  97. Angel says:

    Dedicate this one to GD the cowboy

  98. JM says:

    Sax: never heard of him

    This guy

    Owen Harries is a Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy and editor emeritus of The National Interest, a leading Washington-based foreign policy quarterly.

    He was born in Wales in 1930 and educated at the Universities of Wales and Oxford. He served as a pilot officer in the RAF (1952-54). He taught at the Universities of Sydney and New South Wales from 1956 to 1975.

    In the late 1970s he was head of policy planning in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, and senior adviser, successively, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Andrew Peacock) and the Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser). In 1978-9 he was Chairman of the Committee on Australia’s Relations with the Third World. During 1982-83 he was Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. In 1983-85 he was a fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC.

    Author of the following (to take but one of many):

    Foriegn Policy after George W. Bush

    Occasional contributor to “Foreign Affairs” the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, ie. the big fact soft cover book-like magazine available monthly in all good bookstores and newsagents (at least the serious ones in serious places)

    But, whatever. Please continue with your games infants.

  99. Ray Dixon says:

    While I don’t agree with JM’s views on the mooted US military base, I agree with him that you two (GD & Angel) are carrying on like infants.

    And your music taste sucks. Bon Jovi?

  100. Angel says:

    And Ray has surfaced….

  101. Ray Dixon says:

    And Billy Idol?!? Says it all about your tastes.

  102. Angel says:

    Spose it does, and yours is?

  103. Sax says:

    So JM, you are taking your stance, based on an academic, with even older experience than I have ? He served for three years, in England, in peace time. Hmm, hardly a war chest of information ?

    So, ok he’s your hero. Big deal, what’s your point again ?

    Again, you forget, that like it or not, we have treaties. We honour those treaties. With ANZUS being the main one, if the US feels like it needs a base in Darwin, then again what is the problem with that ? You think that makes us a target ? Again, I have news for you. We already are. You only have to listen to the rhetoric from that tosser with the fez, in Sydney and his supporters to confirm that.

    Reality time perhaps ?

  104. Angel says:


    Note to Ray – Angel even gets a mention in this one !!!

  105. Sax says:

    talk about killing the thread ?

  106. GD says:

    Oh give off, Ray! This thread has been dominated by JM’s anti-American ravings, and RR’s even loonier anti-American ravings, and you expect us to take the debate seriously. Coupled with this, there’s JM’s outburst at me the other night because I made a mistake with an acronym. Tonight he reckons I insulted him by comparing him to RR.

    It was at that point Angel and I decided to play music video games. Infants? If JM and RR are the epitome of an adult I’d never want to grow up, given their lack of debating and reasoning skills.

    JM, I will read your cut’n’paste references to Harries. Pity you couldn’t return the favour and read one of the publications I pointed you towards.

  107. JM says:

    Sax: he’s your hero.

    He’s not. He’s someone I usually don’t agree with so I’m very surprised to find that he does. And his hawkish credentials are impeccable so excuse me if I ignore your unjustified chestbeating as the “demonstrations and presentations” of an immature bantam.

    if the US feels like it needs a base in Darwin, then again what is the problem with that ?

    Because it’s Australia, not the US. We never bowed down and gave the British bases on demand why should we be doing it for the US (or indeed anyone)?

    You think that makes us a target ?

    Separate argument. Not worth discussing in this context. The key issue is sovereignty and if you don’t recognize it, you’re a fool. And since I believe you’ve also agreed in the past with the likes of John Howard over the UN (“We decide who comes to this country and how they come”), you’re a hypocrite.

  108. GD says:

    “We decide who comes to this country and how they come”

    Yep, Johnny would have stuck by that, and approved the establishment of the US base, and continued to send illegal immigrants, posing as asylum seekers, to Nauru. Both ways, JWH was correct in what he said.

  109. Angel says:

    I think you will find JM that the base in Darwin will be used for joint trainings as currently happens here already.

    Has Kuwait been invaded by China? What about Germany, Japan, Italy, Bahrain, Greece, Greenland, The Netherlands, or Spain? They all have US Bases and so far are not speaking Mandarin.

  110. Sax says:

    Fair point Angel. For some reason, as was brought up the guys have an aversion to america here.

    Again, like it or not, we have agreements/treaties with our allies, regarding defence of the region. Argumentively, they have kept us in peace for over sixty years. Remember the Domino Theory ? You obviously don’t see the benefit. Fair enough, but we live in a democracy, and I am fairly certain that the majority of voters in this country, especially with China exercising it’s arrogance, there wouldn’t be too many complaints. Darwin already is a military town, with bases there for all three Australian services.

    Because it’s Australia, not the US. We never bowed down and gave the British bases on demand why should we be doing it for the US (or indeed anyone)?

    Hmm, diggers from ww1 and 2 might disagree with you there. We gave them everything else ?

  111. JM says:

    Angel: They all have US Bases and so far are not speaking Mandarin

    I don’t think I understand what this sentence could possibly be intended to mean. I know I don’t understand what it actually says.

    I think we’ll have to declare you the King of the Non-Sequitar Angel.

  112. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES! The misery of the Maralinga tests, Sir Robert Menzies, this is the man who was more British then the British themselves, offered Maralinga to the British for nuclear testing. The local Aborigines were forcibly removed, and nuclear testing proceeded without any consultation with the owners of the area. The British regarded Australia as their backyard as far as nuclear testing was concerned. Over sixty years later the area around Maralingga is highly contaminated. Many Australian servicemen on this site, were used as human test tubes for these experiments, and were later to die of cancer caused by radiation. Nothing has changed, except we are now sucking up to the yanks, and I’m screaming out loud, Yankees go home, you are not welcome in Darwin. As for God save the Queen, even God could not save Lizzie.

  113. Richard Ryan says:

    I have got more to warm the cockles your hearts, Menzies is the man who plunged Australia into the “American war” in Vietnam, a war based on lies, as did Howard, who plunged Australia into the Iraqi war, another war based on lies. If you don’t like those two comments, I have plenty more, here to keep you in a state of rage.

  114. Sax says:

    What lies were those ?
    Vietnam started just after Korea. We all saw what China’s intentions were then. They weren’t going to stop at Korea.
    I love your version of history though. Pity it was so based in hatred, and uneducated, inexperienced drivel.

    As for you screaming out aloud “go home yanks”, when standing on the docks in Darwin, perhaps you had better bring a megphone. Better make it a bloody big one, that’s considering the whallopers allow you within even ten miles of the place.
    A crash helmet may not go astray either.

    As for Iraq, your opinion, not much fact. You have spent too much time reading the lefty newsletters. Again, you have not rebutted my Pakistan argument. Convenient that ?

    As for Maralingga, I had an uncle who served there. He died three years ago. Aged 84.
    Next ?

    All I can say is, thank God people such as yourself, and JM, are few in number. The ramifications of what you are advocating are dire. Treaties have kept us safe, and secure for over 60 years. Thankfully, the people that are making these decisions do not do so, with your bitterness and twisted versions of history.

  115. Sax says:

    BTW, by mentioning Maralingga, you defeated your own argument you bloody tool.
    I thought you said there were no english bases on Australian soil ? Oops!

  116. Angel says:

    JM “The key issue is sovereignty” No it wasn’t. Bob Brown said it would annoy China and increase the threat. China has not invaded those countries so his statement is not true to form nor backed with any substance.
    “Non-Sequitar” ??? So you must be the only one that can make sense of Richards dittys. Is this a case of two minds…Besides I think I would prefer Princess Angel better.

  117. Sax says:

    Since when do we care whether or not it “would upset China” ?
    Since when does China dictate our internal policy decisions ?
    Has the capital of Australia changed from Canberra to Shanghai ?

    We are a sovereign nation in our own right. We, (as does China btw), have the right to defend ourselves, and take any action necessary on our own soil, to ensure our own security.

    Again, it is a shame that your and your mates don’t see the benefits, of being a member of a larger community, that does have the ability to protect us, if it does hit the fan. Again, with China exercising its arrogance, it is prudent to place a bloody big stop sign on our borders, in case it gets ideas. An american base may do that. I honestly doubt it would make that much difference in the long run. China has the numbers, (cannon fodder for want of a better term), but the deterrent value is valid.

    For the moment, like the USSR, China needs the west. It was centuries behind in technology and manufacturing expertise. It wants both, and much more. So, for the moment, it is willing to curb its ambitions, to get those and much more. When it has all what it wants, hmm, lets see if your attitude is the same then perhaps ?

  118. Sax says:

    Congrats on the 100+ Iain.
    Foreign policy is always a good topic to get the rednecks riled up ?
    😉

  119. Iain Hall says:

    Indeed it is Sax 😉

  120. Richard Ryan says:

    Ah yes! WHY is it History can be selectively ignored? Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  121. Richard Ryan says:

    For more information, see the defacto sec. of defence——————–Sax. For the record, I am learning to speak Mandarin—-Knee How.

  122. Iain Hall says:

    Richard you really need to learn Machine language if you want to curry favour with our future masters…..

    01011010100010101010101010101010000010101010101000000111111

  123. Sax says:

    You still haven’t commented on the yanks saving Israel’s ass in the sixties ?

    Learn any language you like, it hasn’t done Ruddy any good has it ?

  124. GD says:

    You sound overjoyed at the prospect, RR. Just can’t wait to live under a communist regime, eh?

  125. Angel says:

    Cant see that happening RR, not when the yanks are here.

  126. JM says:

    Angel, in case you haven’t noticed I am not Bob Brown. If you disagree with him on anything, please take it up directly and not with me.

  127. Angel says:

    Met him back in the Franklin days, was a bit smelly for my liking.

  128. Richard Ryan says:

    Nice to see that the leader of the American Empire pouring heaps on our beloved leader, Madam Gillard, maybe he could send in the seals, and do a bit of rework on Bolts blog, the hatred there towards Gillard, makes me look like a unmolested Catholic altar boy.

  129. Richard Ryan says:

    AND of course Bolt’s hatred towards Obama—-his blogs don’t lie———but then he is a confirmed racist.

  130. Iain Hall says:

    How could we possibly “know ” that you are not anybody in particular JM?

  131. Sax says:

    For you Mr Hall ?

    01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01110010 01101001 01100011 01101011 00100000 00100001

    😉

  132. Craigy says:

    Yes and GD is really GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET, that wonderful leader, backed by the USA and so loved by wingnuts.

  133. Craigy says:

    So the difference between China and the USA would be? (And please don’t say freedom or democracy, when the US has supported and is supporting so many undemocratic, violent, dictatorships over the years).

    Even the US president said just today that we should respect China for their peaceful engagement with the West, and we sure don’t have a problem doing business with them.

    RR is correct, if our kids want success in the future start teaching them Mandarin.

  134. Craigy says:

    Sax,

    01001110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01010100 01101111 01101110 01111001 00100000 01000001 01100010 01100010 01101111 01110100 01110100 00101110

  135. Craigy says:

    Iain, your binary doesn’t decode…… ):

  136. Iain Hall says:

    Nor should it as I made it up via a spasm of the fingers on my keyboard!

  137. Sax says:

    worked fine here ?

  138. Sax says:

    sorry first one of Iain’s didn’t
    doh !

  139. Craigy says:

    orgggg…..spoiling all the fun!

  140. Richard Ryan says:

    I like the comment by that Australian writer, Australia is now the “aircraft carrier of the USA”, can’t think of the name of the guy, he pops up on Q&A,but I like the ” aircraft carrier of the USA, IT’S BONZO.

  141. Richard Ryan says:

    No comment on your mate Andrew Bolt, Iain——–he is very quite, no comments on Obama, Has Andrew Wilkie told him to behave?

  142. Sax says:

    Why do you think, taxpayer dollars went into extending RAAF Fairburn/Canberra’s airport main runway, to accommodate 747’s ?

    Australia is now the “aircraft carrier of the USA”

    Got news for you kiddo.
    Always has been !

  143. Sax says:

    might this whole thing be so as something like the below can never happen again ?

  144. Sax says:

    Craigy ?
    😆

  145. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s good to see you conservatives supporting Gillard’s alliance with Obama over the Darwin JOINT TRAINING FACILITY. Not surprised that the Greens oppose it – they’d oppose anything that made sense.

  146. JM says:

    Ray, read the papers. This is anything but a “joint training facility”. It’s a more extensive arrangement that allows US troops to come and go as they please, to operate independently within Australia and the US Air Force to overfly and use bases without Australian interaction or permission.

    Check p6 of the Australian today. This is a base plus fairly unrestricted rights to military activity.

    Feel better now?

  147. Ray Dixon says:

    Well, I’m not worried, JM. Are you? And why? I can’t see how you’ve made a case against it actually.

  148. Sax says:

    Not unlike the powers they already have under ANZUS JM ?
    I reckon it’s a great idea. All those new aircraft, that we can’t afford to buy off them, we get put in our “car park” for nicks ?

    You have been asked many times above, what your main beef is with this arrangement. Apart from saying that it would make us a target, which btw, we already are, you have not specified.

  149. GD says:

    You guys make a lot of sense, Ray and Sax. This is the first rational decision by Joolia since she usurped our Kevvie. Now it seems she’s on a roll with uranium to India as well.

    Mind you, if the Libs had done either of these things, you wouldn’t be able to hear yourself for the shouting.

  150. JM says:

    Sax, what “powers” does the US have over Australian territory under ANZUS? Hmmmmm.

    Give up? I’ll tell you. None.

    The only obligation/right imposed by ANZUS is that we (and they) “consult” with each other before doing anything within the ANZUS area that may affect the others interests. We have no right to stop them.

    They most certainly do not have anything like the right to come and go or overfly without our permission. Remember when NZ banned US nuclear warships from their harbours? That was entirely in line with the ANZUS treaty.

    And just on another note, you may remember that several times over the last 30 odd years the US has sought to fly B52’s out of various bases in our region and been refused by every country and had to resort to Deigo Garcia. Afghanistan is an example both in 1980 and more recently.

    This agreement gives them the right to fly from Darwin without so much as a “by your leave”

    That’s the beef I have with all this. Sovereignty. We have given away control over part of our country.

    Is that so hard to understand?

  151. JM says:

    Sax: new aircraft, that we can’t afford to buy off them, we get put in our “car park” for nicks ?

    You’re an infant. Will Australian pilots fly them? No. Will the Australian government be able to deploy them in our interests? No

  152. Sax says:

    Wow, what a brain fart JM.

    What do you think our pilots are flying now, bloody A6M’s ffs ?
    Where do you think our aircraft came from, a lucky dip showbag ?
    Where, and how, do you think our combat pilots receive their advance flying training ?
    a cornflakes packet ? Talk about infants.

    What powers ?
    The ability to come and go freely at will.
    The ability to use Australia as a staging base for local deployment.
    The use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment under joint agreement.
    and so on, and so on and so forth.
    What’s the problem with that. After all, they are an ally, and probably our greatest ally at that.
    What’s more, they have those powers anyway, without the new base.

    The entire treaty of Anzus is joint, in everything. Consultation between signatories right down the line. NZ rejecting ships into its harbour, is probably the reason as to why they have been left out of this whole arrangement, and probably the reason why they have been left out of a whole lot else as well.

    Your fear and paranoia is gut wrenching really, but you need to get your head out of your ar*e and join us in the real world here. We live in dangerous times, and a little prudence is advisable, not running around burning US flags. This whole arrangement will aid us in securing this country, as well as the surrounding region. To those SE Asian powers that are eying off this place, it will make them think twice. This is costing us nout, but a few hundred acres, and in the process instead of making Darwin (or wherever) a target, it will help in defending it.
    Obviously, you are a “glasses half empty” person.
    Pretty sad that you can’t see the positives here.

  153. Richard Ryan says:

    Now let’s have a bit of balance here,why not lease out a military base to our great trading partner China, say in the North West region where we export, all our iron ore to China from, Imagine if China set up a military base in Mexico—–the Yanks would be beating their war tom-toms. I will say again, no foreign troops on Australian soil.

  154. Sax says:

    Another one who says just bend over and take it up the rear for the cause.

    China wouldn’t for the very reason you mention RR.
    You made my point for me.

  155. Ray Dixon says:

    Let’s let Kevin Rudd have the final word on this. I think he says it very well:

    (from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-18/rudd-defiant-in-troops-row-with-china/3678526)

    The Chinese government has questioned the appropriateness of the troops deal, saying Beijing would never enter into such an alliance.

    But Mr Rudd told 7.30 last night Australia would not be changing its position.

    “Let’s just be very blunt about it, we are not going to have our national security policy dictated by any other external power. That’s a sovereign matter for Australia,” he said.

    We don’t seek to dictate to the Chinese what their national security policy should be. Therefore this must be advanced on the basis of mutual respect.”

    He dismissed suggestions the arrangement with the US could make Australia a potential target if tensions flared in the South China Sea.

    “It is simply imprudent and wrong to speculate publicly on what might or might not happen in given strategic contingencies in the future,” he said.

  156. Richard Ryan says:

    Sax sounds like a CIA agent or else he is trying to curry favour with the Americans. America has supported all the great tyrants, at one time or another, such as Pol Pot, bin Laden–“freedom fighter” against the Russians, Marcos, Saddam, supplied arms to him when at war with Iran. The Shah of Iran,And a few other despots in South America, and around the world. The American brain washing has worked well on Sax——or maybe he is smoking that chemical that is flown in from Afghanistan. America would trade with the devil, if it served it’s requirements, hence in some quarters, known as the ‘GREAT SATAN.

  157. Sax says:

    Thanks for the quote Ray. Extremely apt and what has been said here, at least by those using a bit of good old fashioned common sense ?

    Picking allies is a tricky business, obviously a process you have no idea about Dick.
    Out of all of your examples, just how many are left now ?
    Hmm, funny about that, none !

    Iran is still a threat to middle eastern piece, and khomeiny (or whoever it is now) is a full on ratbag. Another religious zealot, that won’t be satisfied until the entire planet is bowing with reverence at his feet.

    Speaking of brain washing.
    RR is sounding like that wa*nker Brown, an advocate of religious extremism around the planet, and anyone who has the guts to stand up, and say NO, should be silenced and put away somewhere. An advocate of peace at whatever cost, and whatever or whomever you have to bow in reverence to. You, and others like you, are the reason why actions like these are important, and must continue.

    Not once, in the last hundred years, have the yanks gone into a country, to rid it of a tyrant or similar, and stayed on a permanent basis. They have left when it felt the situation has settled enough for it to do so. Iraq is not done yet, not by a long shot. These people cannot handle democracy. The entire region has proven that over thousands of years. They need to be ruled. The US was tasked, by the UN to go in, with a NATO force to bring peace to the region. Just because you don’t like that RR, doesn’t make the job any less important.

    If we had believed the rhetoric from Hussein late last century, his threat was to set fire to the entire oil fields of the middle east. Remember that ? Probably not.

    The Pol Pot regime, financing its war using heroin as it source of income.

    And then of course, the latest sweetheart. Bin Laden, threatening to release nerve gas all over the US and its allies.
    Then there’s people like RR, saying, yep, that’s fine. Storm in a teacup.

    Want to continue, or do you want to make more of a bloody fool of yourself ?
    You should wake up and smell what your shovelling RR, cos it’s absolutely fairy tale stuff, right out of the leftist’s feel good handbook.

    Thank God, you, and people of your pityfully deluded persuasions, aren’t the ones that make the tough decisions. You simply have no idea as to how it works.
    Time you came and joined us in the real world.

  158. Craigy says:

    “These people cannot handle democracy. The entire region has proven that over thousands of years. They need to be ruled.”

    So Sax, can you define “these people” for me……

    Is it those people with brown skin or the ones that talk funny? Or is it those who are Muslim? Which group do you think we are better than and why is that they can not rule themselves in your view?

    Perhaps you think it is their culture or race that makes them incapable of self rule, if so which cultures or races do you think we should invade and enslave?

    How much freedom should we give “these people”? Not the vote clearly, as they can’t rule themselves? No breeding as they are inferior humans? No leaders as they have ‘proven’ over thousands of years that they can’t handle themselves?

    As we are clearly faultless in our democracy, what makes us so much better in your view?

  159. Sax says:

    Oh your sarcasm and wit are at a knife’s edge Mr Craigy.

    The middle eastern countries mentioned have been ruled as tyranical kingdoms, for thousands of years. You know the ones I am talking about, as we have had this discussion before, and I think then as well, I was branded as a racist. That’s bull*it. Race has nothing to do with it nor has religion.
    It’s all about political power, and wealth, and attempting to rule using fear, instead of respect and dignity.

    With the region, war is a way of life since even before Christs time, if that be your belief. Persia, the Arab Kingdom, even Asian countries such as China, Japan, Siam/Burma, India etc. Those ring a bell with you yet ? Don’t say centuries out of date either, as most still have sitting monarchs.

    I’ll turn it back on you ? How much power/freedom do we give, when their local imams instruct them to strap explosives to their chest, and go blow up a plaza full of women and children, in their own villages ffs ? Not much of a respect for life is it ?

    Why are we so much better than them ? I don’t know about that, but I do know, that we don’t strap explosives to the chests of our kids, blow up buses, plazas et al, to ensure everyone shows up to church on Sunday do we ?

  160. Craigy says:

    I’ll try and answer without sarcasm, but I was only asking you questions Sax.

    You highlight the very small number of people of all religions who blow things up to make a point. There are Christians, Muslims, Jews and non-religious people from all political backgrounds who have done this and continue to do it. Think the IRA, right wing extremists in the USA, Jihadists and left wing extremists in the Philippines just to name a few.

    So can you please explain who you are talking about?…..Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, who do you recommend we invade?

  161. Richard Ryan says:

    I think more or less they were told to leave Subic Bay——turned into one big marine brothel, from what I saw of it. Sax! you are full of it —–yANKEE BULLSHIT. In the art of killing the Yanks are tops—–starting off with the American bison——-then the original inhabitants—–the injuns—–mass genocide. It’s in their genes——they just love killing. As a Vietnam veteran told me many years ago—–he was more afraid of these Yankee uneducated goons, then of the Viet Cong—-this digger has since died from the effects of agent orange. American war crimes in ‘nam—–now that would be interesting in a court of law. All Empires have a use by date—-look up your history on the fall of the Roman Empire. America is in decline, as Abbott once said, shit happens.

  162. Sax says:

    Craigy
    I agree with you about Ireland as well. We have forgotten about all of that, in all of the above argument.

    Brings up a valid point though doesn’t it ?
    How many of the population of this ugly little planet, do we, as a planet, allow to be murdered or tortured, in the name of religion and power when it comes down to it ? Isn’t that the basis of the entire argument here ? That is really what is all about in the long run. The religions fighting each other, using their followers as cannon fodder, to be top of the pile, and the erradication the rest ? I now don’t want to get into an argument about religion, each to his own, until it says strap c4 to your chest, go and blow yourself up, as well as a couple of hundred others in the process ? Then it is not a religion, rather a bloody cult. Hell, I can remember saying that before as well ?

    I don’t think it is a small amount of people either. If you add them all up, how many tens of thousands have died, in terrorist acts, in the name of religion ? Perhaps one person does the dirty deed, but how many are behind that one person pushing the buttons and winding them up ?

    What I am talking about, mentioning those “kingdoms”, is that the w*nkers sitting on those thrones, have used religion to subjecate their population since year dot. Religion is being used to keep the populace in line. In some cases, nothing short of slavery ? Added to that, the use of deadly force, to ensure their loyal subjects stay in line.

    Richard
    You forgot about the Australian aboriginals ? But, according to you, we live in a perfect world, where no one does not wrong. sic
    You also forgot the killing of one of our national emblems for dog food ? But, we are so much better than the yanks aren’t we ? Hmm !
    As for the rest of your sermon, emotive claptrap. Not worthy of comment.

  163. Sax says:

    Sorry Craigy, forgot one.
    How many to we invade ?

    NONE ! I suggest we build a bloody big cyclone fence around the whole place, and let them fight it out amongst themselves, making certain they can’t hurt anyone else in the process.

  164. JM says:

    > Wow, what a brain fart JM.

    Not so much, but your response certainly is.

    > What do you think our pilots are flying now, bloody A6M’s ffs ?

    US sourced aircraft, which we paid for and have complete control over because we bleedin’ well paid for them and own them Do we fly USAF aircraft? No. Are they painted in Australian colors? No.

    
> Where, and how, do you think our combat pilots receive their advance flying training ?

    Well some of them *might* receive training from the Top Gun school in Hawaii (where an old acquaintance of mine was a flight instructor during the 1980’s) but you know what? I doubt it. Australia doesn’t have carriers.

    > What powers ?
> The ability to come and go freely at will.

    Under ANZUS? Chapter and verse please. The US never had this right under ANZUS.

    
> The ability to use Australia as a staging base for local deployment.

    Under ANZUS? Chapter and verse please. The US never had this right under ANZUS.

    
> The use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment under joint agreement.
    
> and so on, and so on and so forth.

    Under ANZUS? Chapter and verse please. The US never had this right under ANZUS.

    You’re full of it Sax. None of your assertions are true.

  165. JM says:

    Sax: The entire treaty of Anzus is joint, in everything. Consultation between signatories right down the line.

    Yeaaaaah. Which is normal for most agreements. There is always a pretence of equality between the parties.

    But it’s only consultation Sax. If ANZUS truly provided the US with basing and overflight rights (which it doesn’t) where then is the Australian base in the US and the Australian overfly rights for the US?

    They don’t exist. Because ANZUS doesn’t confer them. On either side.

    Hang your head in shame, you don’t have the first idea what you’re talking about.

    Dropkick.

  166. GD says:

    For us punters, JM, those of us with little knowledge of matters military, what is the downside to this US presence in Darwin? What are you scared they’ll do? I mean, they haven’t invaded us in the last two hundred years….

  167. Sax says:

    Speaking of dropkicks ?
    Any wonder why Bob Brown is not taken seriously, with followers such as yourself, and RR in his corner.

    Implied in the Anzus Treaty is the following ?

    DESIRING further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area.

    Click to access anzus.pdf

    Further in the treaty ?

    Article II
    In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

    Further ?

    The Alliance is the foundation of defence and security cooperation between Australia and the United States. This increases Australia’s ability to protect itself and its interests by providing access to world-leading defence hardware and technologies, access to training courses and combined exercises, and to vital intelligence capabilities. Such cooperation supports joint efforts against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. For more information about the defence relationship, see the Department of Defence’s website.
    http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/us/australia_us_alliance.html

    Oh effing yawn !

    Again, using your brilliant logic, how do you explain Pine Gap ?
    Oops, forget about that ?

    Finally, cos I am not here to do your research for you…

    Similarly, there are many bilateral treaties and Memoranda of Understanding that permit military aircraft mutually to train in or transit through their airspace. For example, Singapore has such arrangements with the U.S., France and Australia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_skies#Military_regulation

    They said US forces would not establish new bases on Australian soil but they would be welcomed into existing facilities with the less politically risky formula of being given unfettered access to “places, not bases”.

    The agreement will be similar to that covering the joint intelligence-gathering facilities such as Pine Gap.

    The Americans will not just be offered space on a base – they will be there with what Defence calls “full knowledge and concurrence” so that they will have a share in all processes, such as access to intelligence and maintenance facilities.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/us-forces-get-nod-to-share-our-bases/story-fn59niix-1225948576258

    Ah, bless the thong brigade for their paranoia.
    😉

  168. Sax says:

    Bugger the two link rule got me

  169. Sax says:

    He thinks it plants a bloody big bullseye on our country GD.
    Real fifties hide under the bed, walk around with aluminium pie lids on our head stuff.

  170. GD says:

    Thanks, Sax. I remember now that Bob Brown raised that point too. In other words, the loonie left reckon we should placate China, Iran and other unlikely aggressors, by remaining a defenceless, pliant nation, turning our back on past allies, just in case we upset these totalitarian states.

    FFS

  171. Iain Hall says:

    Fixed by divine intervention Sax 😉

  172. JM says:

    Sax, legal genius – so where exactly does the treaty grant basing rights and overfly rights. To either party.

    And why has this not been noticed for the last half century since it was signed?

    You’re wrong.

  173. JM says:

    And Sax. I did ask for chapter an verse on the following items of your argument:

    * US territorial powers over Australia (or a portion thereof)
    * US ability to US “Australia as a staging post for local deployment”
    * US “use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment”

    Nothing of what you quote allows that.

    I’m sorry Sax. I shouldn’t have described you as an “infant”. Infants can grow up. You’re cognitively impaired.

  174. Sax says:

    Thanks Iain, sorry about that.

    Reread the quote JM. It’s implied. I didn’t give you chapter and verse, I directly linked to the passage instead. Whatsamatter, was that too tough for you to follow ? Heez, the document is not all that long in the first place.

    Like any valid contract, or in this case a treaty, it has enough wiggle room in it, to park a bloody jumbo.

    * US territorial powers over Australia (or a portion thereof)

    Never said by me or the US. So now you’re making it up as you go ? The only US building on Australian soil that we can’t enter is their embassy. Even Pine Gap is joint.

    * US ability to use Australia as a staging post for local deployment”

    Also in ANZUS. All facilities in this country can be (and have been) shared by all those signatories of the treaty. Already been done before. Troops for Vietnam, even as far back as WW2. A little late to complain about that. Darwin as well as Pearce in WA were both used as staging areas for Vietnam. Forget about that ?

    * US use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment”

    Hmm, again, a little late to complain about that. Think back to WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Rwanda, Cambodia, and so on.

    Like any contract/treaty, only the words cooperation, and such like are used, so as to allow for a wide interpretation and application. That is why our troops are and have been “invited” on peace keeping duties and worse ?

    Cognative impaired huh ? 😆
    Better than that tunnel vision you have. What are you using to see your shoes, an f’ing telescope ?

  175. Sax says:

    Good comment GD, you nailed it.
    The looney lefty brigade are playing by their rule book, and expect the rest of us to be as dumb as they are, and swallow it.

  176. JM says:

    > I directly linked to the passage instead

    The passage does not support your argument.

    > Never said by me

    Yes. Said by you. Let me quote.

    Sax:
    The ability to come and go freely at will.

    ….

    The ability to use Australia as a staging base for local deployment

    ….

    The use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment under joint agreement and so on, and so on and so forth.

    All of which you claimed are powers the US already enjoys under the ANZUS treaty. And claims I’ve already specifically referenced.

    Back ’em up or back off. I don’t really care if you man up and admit fault or just slink away into the darkness, but don’t resile from your own words.

  177. Sax says:

    And JM, you are making an absolute fool of yourself. Especially with information that can be so easily corroborated ?

    Well some of them *might* receive training from the Top Gun school in Hawaii (where an old acquaintance of mine was a flight instructor during the 1980′s) but you know what? I doubt it. Australia doesn’t have carriers.

    Top Gun school was never in Hawaii.
    The original school was in California, at Miromar.

    The United States Navy (USN) Fighter Weapons School was established on March 3, 1969 at NAS Miramar, California at the direction of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Strike_Fighter_Tactics_Instructor_program

    and further.
    It is now in Nevada.

    In 1996, the transfer of NAS Miramar to the Marine Corps was coupled with the incorporation of TOPGUN into the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) at NAS Fallon, Nevada.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Strike_Fighter_Tactics_Instructor_program

    Boy, you really have to do your research better.

  178. Sax says:

    Obviously, my comment at 838 was too technical for you to handle.
    Back off yourself. All you have come up with rhetoric and biased discrimination.
    Again, the argument has been presented, and backed up with fact.
    Where’s yours ?

    Sadly missing.
    Perhaps you can ring your mate in Top Gun Hawaii ?
    😆

  179. JM says:

    My mistake, as I said the person concerned is an acquaintance from about 35 years ago who I sit meet but only very occasionally. Regardless of that he was a flight instructor at that school and that is not in doubt.

    But this is an irrelevance. Can you please substantiate or withdraw your central claims, namely that the ANZUS treaty:

    1. Gives US troops the right to come and go in Australia at will

    2. Gives the US the right to use Australian facilities at will “as a staging base for local deployment”

    3. Gives the US the right to “use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment” at will

    It does none of those things.

    Egg. Sax. Meet face.

  180. Sax says:

    JM meets common sense and fact, and argument goes right out the window.

    Already have numerous times.
    This whole argument by you, or lack of it, is becoming quiet a yawn JM.
    Never mind me, I think it is time, as I have put up, time for you to admit defeat, and shut up.
    Like a christmas turkey, you’re done !

  181. GD says:

    What the hell does it matter if the US has these powers. They’re hardly going to invade us, inconvenience us, or take over our country, yet on the other hand, given the crap that is happening in the Middle East and knowing the behemoth that China is, it’s reassuring that the Us has a vested interest in this part of the world.

    Unfortunately, loonie lefties like JM and RR prefer to side with China or Islamic countries like Iran, rather than side with our proven allies. Their visceral hatred of all things American clouds their vision, although being communists to begin with, it’s not hard to see why.

  182. JM says:

    Sax > Already have numerous times

    Where? Plenty of assertions, none of which you have managed to back up

    GD > What the hell does it matter if the US has these powers

    Well then they would have (technically) invaded us GD. As I said earlier, simple concepts appear to beyond some peoples grasp

    On this evidence, both you are completely brain damaged.

  183. Sax says:

    I totally agree with your summation GD.
    They still don’t answer the basic questions.
    Apart from the basic “we’re a target”, nothing has come from either of them regarding the subject, or substantiated they’re theory as to why we will become a target ? China may get upset, and apply sanctions as may a few other Asian trading partners, but as I said earlier, at the moment, they need us more than we need them, so who cares ?
    If China had been that concerned, they would have been jumping up and down on the one spot after the announcement was made.

  184. Sax says:

    Speaking of brain damaged.
    I have put in links as well as directed you.
    Rest is up to you.
    Obviously, you want to continue to make an absolute dick of yourself.
    Hey, I’ll play. I’m only doing book work here anyway.
    Knock yourself out.

  185. GD says:

    JM, relax, the US isn’t going to take over Australia. And please, stop with the insults. We can all dish those out. They don’t facilitate discussion or argument, and don’t prove anything. Perhaps you could try answering, again, why the US presence is such a threat to our nation’s well-being.

  186. Sax says:

    Oh wonderful, when does joint action, under a ratified treaty between friends, become an invasion ?
    With our RAAF Base in Butterworth, Malaysia, operating up till late last century, that means that we invaded Malaysia ? Oh please ! 😆

  187. Sax says:

    BTW, you still continue to ignore our valid question, of why you don’t want a base here, other than inferred “it makes us a target”

  188. JM says:

    GD and Sax, you are both mistaking my argument for Brown’s expression of his – namely the “we’ll become a target” stuff.

    My argument is sovereignty. ie. Who makes the law, controls the roads and airspace in this country. With a foreign military holding a base in our country we no longer do over that part of the country. A foreign power does.

    With a foreign power having overfly rights we no longer control our own airspace.

    Contradict me please, but do so with substance and not blather.

    Oh and Sax if you won’t substantiate any of your 3 claims can you please at least substantiate the last – that the US President can order up Australian troops for deployment at will? That wasn’t possible under ANZUS and we’ll have to disagree if you think it was.

    But can you explain

    a.) how it is possible under the new basing agreement (I’d be horrified if it was)

    b.) why you are so sanquine about it

    Regards

  189. GD says:

    Who makes the law, controls the roads and airspace in this country. With a foreign military holding a base in our country we no longer do over that part of the country. A foreign power does.

    Oh come on, JM, ‘that part of the country’, what, a couple of hundred hectares? What are they going to do, declare the 51st state of the US? For FFS put aside your leftard hatred of the US and see the big picture. We are glad to have these guys here. We are a vulnerable country. Why go it alone when Asia and the Middle East are so fraught with problems? Going it alone is painting a target on our arses! With a US presence we aren’t alone.

  190. Angel says:

    JM, The yanks, Aussies, Dutch and whoever else that uses the base in Kuwait still has to abide by the Kuwati laws. Cant see we would be any different here.

  191. GD says:

    Hello Angel! GD is waving.

  192. Sax says:

    Aw c’mon man. We have both done this dance many times.

    The order is not given. The treaty is one of mutual cooperation and understanding, and, as also said, the terms are so broad, you could park the USS Enterprise in them. The request is made through diplomatic channels, as it has been done for WW2, Korea, Vietnam and so on. (man, this is just getting laboriously repetetive now). Our sitting government analyses those requests, and acts on them accordingly, like any other treaty obligations.

    A US base on this land, probably like Pine Gap, would become not US territory, rather a joint facility. It is not US land, but our land under lease, or some other financial agreement with the US. It will be like any other military base of ours in this country. Its own police force, roads infrastructure etc, totally seperate from the land around it, for self sufficiency purposes. Like any other Army, Navy or RAAF base currently in Australia.

    With a foreign power having overfly rights we no longer control our own airspace.

    That is incorrect. Our airspace is still our airspace. Currently, as I a pilot, I know for a fact, that any military aircraft, has precendence of commercial or private aircraft in our airspace, regardless of what country it originates from. We already have no fly zones around military installations in Australia, and that is enforced by CASA. Nothing new there ?

    Oh and Sax if you won’t substantiate any of your 3 claims can you please at least substantiate the last – that the US President can order up Australian troops for deployment at will? That wasn’t possible under ANZUS and we’ll have to disagree if you think it was

    C’mon man, I have done that at least three times as well. Geez !
    He can’t. He “requests”, and will be granted his request, under the conditions of our alliance, ANZUS or whatever. Those requests are possible, and have been made, again as I have put above.

    “Sanquine”, if you mean “sanguine”, I am happy about it because of successive past Australian federal governments, of both parties, have short changed defence spending for decades. Our military is sadly in need of materiel. There was a review a few years ago, to finally give our diggers a well earned pay rise, in an attempt to stop the massive exodus of personnel. With the US perhaps refurbishing Darwin for us, perhaps they will help us, with sadly needed newer equipment as well.

  193. GD says:

    Good call on ‘sanguine’ Sax. I’m not one for spelling police, but that one cried out for it.

  194. Sax says:

    I’m not either, as I make more than a few typos myself, but in an attempt to lighten the moment, that was too good to be true ?
    😆

  195. Angel says:

    Hey GD, I have been very busy. Become a grandmother for the first time. A beautiful (big) baby girl

  196. JM says:

    Sax, you can try to walkback your words as much as you like but the are here on this thread for all to see:

    The ability to come and go freely at will.
    The ability to use Australia as a staging base for local deployment.
    The use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment under joint agreement.
    and so on, and so on and so forth.
    What’s the problem with that.

    Can you show:-

    1. how any of these were granted under ANZUS? No.
    2. how the third – “use of Australian troops” was granted under ANZUS? No.
    3. how the third is granted under this new agreement, because the first two are.

    You have no idea of the issues. You have no idea what you’re arguing about. You are just noise.

  197. Richard Ryan says:

    Sax’s love affair with America! what next? Removal of the Union Jack from our flag, to be replaced by the Stars and Stripes. Yeah I like it, ” You have no idea what you’re arguing about” —————- I liken him to a tin of baked beans——wondering what bean caused the fart.

  198. Sax says:

    Hey Angel,
    Congrats Grandma !
    You are in for a wonderful time.
    It is great when you realise, that when all gets too much, you can just hand them back ?
    Enjoy it !
    😉

  199. Sax says:

    Oh geez, here we go again.
    Hell, I have five minutes whilst the latest run is being number crunched.

    The ability to come and go freely at will.
    Lets just deal with the latest first. Been watching the news ? How about airforce one ffs ? How about yank ships dropping their crews off for shore leave in the last few years, on their way to the gulf ?
    How about US aircraft using our northern bases to refuel before heading for indo china and the far east ? God, I can come up with at least a dozen more of similar.

    how the third – “use of Australian troops” was granted under ANZUS? No.
    Again I gave examples.
    Remember Korea ?
    How about Vietnam ?
    How about Somalia ?
    How about Cambodia ?
    Remember any of those ?

    how the third is granted under this new agreement, because the first two are.
    I think they call it “mutual cooperation”.
    We are obliged to fulfil any requests under ANZUS if possible. The US has withstood asking, as they know we lack personnel, as well as materiel. But, what we do have, and plenty of it, is “location”. We are near the hot spots, and as such can aid the US or anyone within the treaty, as well as NATO with the defence of the region. Even though we lack the materiel, what also we do have is the expertise. The yanks envy our very high standards of training, and already use it extensively. Exchanges between the two countries are often and fruitful. We have very high standards to reach. When I went through, the pass mark for any advanced course was not 50%, but more often 90% and even higher. That is why our guys and gals are respected out in the field.

    You have no idea of the issues. You have no idea what you’re arguing about. You are just noise.
    Wow, is that the pot calling the kettle black.
    A classic rebuttal from someone who has lost the argument, and is fumbling in the dark for some sort of ego starved “save”.
    Instead of sharing a base up north, the US can expand top gun Hawaii to cater for their future needs ? 😉

    And RR, wondered where you skulked off to.
    Another well thought out, well critiqued, positive statement comes bellowing in from the left.
    Doesn’t need a comment actually, pretty self explanatory.

    Congrats on the double ton Iain.
    😉

    Anyway, have fun with it. Have work to do as mentioned. See you after.
    Behave children

  200. Iain Hall says:

    Congratulations Sax that was comment 200!!!
    😀

  201. Sax says:

    I was watching ! 😯
    Congrats again.
    See if the 😯 works ?

  202. JM says:

    Stop wriggling Sax. Every one of your examples require Australian permission. They don’t involve (effectively) a loss of soveignty.

    You know the absurdity of your original claims.

  203. Richard Ryan says:

    Now that the mass hysteria of the Obama visit is over——-on a more serious note, Tony Abbott has talked Andrew Bolt on to staying on, wait for it! for the “good of the country”. Andrew has been sulking since the court case went against him, and has been thinking of “pulling the pin” but Tony’s pep talk convinced Andrew to stay on, over dinner at Bolt’s domain. As Paul Keating would say “God help Australia”. If this pair of dags has anything to do with the running of this society may I add, God could not even save us.

  204. Sax says:

    You really have no idea JM.
    I’m not the one wriggling.
    Each of your relentless US bashing arguments has been explained, then shot down. You then have gone back, repeated you incorrect premises, and gone off again on your merry way, obviously to gain some external redneck support. Hmm, just how successful has that been ? Your mate RR ? Relish in your success.

    Give up man, you have no idea as to how the system works.
    If my argument is so wrong, where are all the detractors to point out the errors I have been making ?

    And the silence is deafening.

    This has been said on numerous occasions, obviously, you don’t get the concept.
    All that is required, is consultation, or even more basic, notification. Normally after the event. They did an episode about this very issue on the West Wing some years back, to show how it works.

    You, as usual, have it backwards. They “effectively” have sovereignty over the land concerned. Try walking through the front gate of one of the installations, and see how far you get. Hell, even try to walk through ANY of Australia’s installations and see how far you get. Years ago, the Australian military law actually had to be changed, as service personnel were breaking civilian laws, then making a mad dash for their base. Civvy coppers were not, and as far as I know, STILL not allowed any further than the front gate, and so were p*ssed off that the law breakers were safely entrenched inside, untouchable, that they rallied through their state governments, that the law be changed to prevent that. That was changed, at least for Australian military bases. Not american ones though.
    If you think a US base on Australian soil is still Australian land, try walking through the front gate of one, and see how far you get.

    They aren’t claims JM, they are fact, and it is a pity that you don’t do five minutes of research yourself to substantiate them as fact.

    I’ll try one of your three liners to finish with.
    You know the absurdity of your claims,
    your premises,
    your supporting evidence of those premises, and finally,
    the conclusions that you arrive at from those premises.

    Do you use “the force” for that ?

  205. Richard Ryan says:

    The USA has three major bases in Australia: One is in South Australia, Nurranger, near Woomera. Another in NSW. And Pine Gap in the N.T. Pine Gap off limits,forbidden to enter for all Australians, it is said, it is drilled five miles down into the earth, most of the USA,. top secret complex is underground. Sax will probably tell you he has a mate stationed there, or better still he has worked there himself.

  206. Richard Ryan says:

    Sax probably worked as a tour guide for the Americans complex, before it was classified as a secure area—— then he was demoted to cleaning the toilets, for the Yanks.

  207. Angel says:

    “.,forbidden to enter for all Australians..”
    Obviously Richard, it is not a museum. God forbid they would let in unhinged paranoid civilians like you to tour around.

  208. Sax says:

    Wow, them sounds like bitter lemons Dick. Get a knock back or something ?
    Put your mouse over my icon, tells you there what I used to do for a living.
    Was/is that too hard a task for your massive brain ?
    I said civvies remember that ?
    God, this thread is beginning to sound like an episode of Roseanne.

  209. Sax says:

    Spot on Angel.
    Any reason why they have armed guards on the front gate, with those two throwing rocks at them ?
    Hmm, there’s an idea RR and JM, field trip anyone ?

  210. JM says:

    Sax, you’re still wriggling.

    Co-operation is not the same as sovereignty.

    Get used to it. You made outlandish statements about the ANZUS treaty and this new arrangement and are trying to walk them back.

    Best give up now.

  211. JM says:

    Sax: If you think a US base on Australian soil is still Australian land,

    This is precisely my point Sax. A US base of the type proposed in Darwin is NOT Australian soil.

    Can you name – with specificity as the exact arrangements – a single US installation in Australia currently existing that meets your criteria of “not being Australian soil”?

    No. There isn’t one. Pine Gap is a joint facility. This new Marine base is not.

    Get it now?

  212. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES! Sax the angry, anonymous blogger, and also a keyboard warrior, Now let’s change tactics, what about a terrorism on war. This Marine Base will be like a red flag to a bull, it’s a small bee that stings the bull, likewise a terrorist attack here is on the cards, as this is the only country, in it’s” terrorism on war” which the terrorist has not dealt it’s cards of death. You may kill the terrorist, but you cannot kill the tactics————it is the “oppressor who dictates the tactics of the oppressed”. I like that quote. Shalom,Richard Ryan.

  213. Sax says:

    You have no idea, same as your mate, what you’re talking about JM. You’re a fool, hoping to rally your fellow fools, to come up and assist you in your lies and hatreds. Hasn’t been much of a success so far has it ?
    Perhaps it is time to try another tack ?

    Either of you two even ever read the ANZUS treaty ? Even for members of the “thong brigade”, such as yourselves, it is only a couple of pages long. Not too much of a brain drain, even for you.
    Other than saying I am wrong, you haven’t specified where or how.
    You’re a typical leftist yank haters that are losing an argument, using that hate, to belt everyone over the head with it, AND LOSING !

    Again I ask, if I am so incorrect, then where (other than you two ratbags), are the throngs coming up and saying I am wrong. Hmm, funny about that.

    Like your mate Browny, you think peace can be maintained by positive vibes, grovelling to all our neighbours, giving in to all their requests/demands. To hell with that. The more you bow down, the more you will have to bow down in the future. Again, get you heads out of your ar*ses you two, and realise that we live in a dangerous region. One that is eying off our country for all its wealth. The only reason it hasn’t gone any further, is because it currently has not the financial resources to make it happen. But you two fuzzy wuzzies think that all will be ok.

    Don’t have to go that far back in history to point out the error in that. Hell, wasn’t this weekend the aniversary of the bombing of Darwin ffs ? There’s proof of my argument right bloody there !

    This is precisely my point Sax. A US base of the type proposed in Darwin is NOT Australian soil.

    So ? And your problem with that is ? We don’t have sovereignty over that land ? Hell, we don’t have sovereignty over anything outside the twelve mile limit either. With japanese fishing trawlers raping our oceans at a ferocious pace, I don’t see you greeny tossers jumping up and down over that ? We don’t have any sovereignty over the land under the US Embassy either do we. Talking about hypocrisy !

    I will bet that this new base, if it is one, will be a joint one as well. They will probably even move in to one of the existing bases in Darwin somewhere, just beefing up surrounding security of the place, just to keep the riff/raff such as yourself out ?

    You may kill the terrorist, but you cannot kill the tactics————it is the “oppressor who dictates the tactics of the oppressed”.

    Which is exactly one of the reasons as to why this should happen, and quickly.
    Since when do we give in to terrorism ?
    Since when do we submit to fear ?
    We don’t. We fight it, down to our last breath. That is one of the prices of freedom.
    Courtney wrote in the 1800’s
    “The price of peace is eternal vigilance”
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leonard_H._Courtney

    Ring a bell ?
    Whats happened since they got Bin Laden btw ? Perhaps Ireland as well ? Geez you talk crap.

    Ah, to you Dick !
    Angry perhaps. But only towards people who comment, using arguments that are ill informed, ill considered, discriminatory, and usually for you and your mate, just straight out bullsheet designed to instil fear and paranoia.
    How’s that going by the way. Not very successful for you so far is it ? We all see through your undeducated paranoia and fear, and the reasons possibly behind it, and fortunately, have ignored it as just childish rhetoric, not even worthy of consiration let alone comment.

  214. JM says:

    Sax: Either of you two even ever read the ANZUS treaty ?

    Yes. Have you? Where does it give the US these supposed rights you speak of? It doesn’t. Contrawise where is the Australian base(s) on US soil? Or Australian overfly rights? There aren’t any. They aren’t there.

    We don’t have any sovereignty over the land under the US Embassy either do we.

    Yes we do. We can ask them to leave at any time (not that we’re likely to). Diplomatic immunity is a legal fiction that is upheld for the sake of being “diplomatic”.

    A few years ago when shots were fired at protesters from within the grounds of the Yugoslav embassy the perpetrators were whisked out of the country by the back door within an hour – because the Australian courts would have put them on trial

    Try that with a US Marine accused of rape (say) as has happened in Okinawa (several times). Won’t happen, can’t happen without US government approval.

    You’re wrong Sax.

  215. JM says:

    And while I’m on the topic of your ignorance Sax, can I point out another clanger of yours that I missed first time round?

    [The ANZUS treaty implies co-operation …] For all sorts of matters. Law and order, science sharing, technical knowledge sharing and so on.

    Bollocks. Absolute horseshit. Like all treaties it has a scope, and a tightly defined one at that. Consultation on matters of mutual defence interests within the Australaisian sphere. Nothing more, nothing less.

    You’re a fool.

  216. Richard Ryan says:

    While Sax points the finger at anyone who does agree with his political requirements, like a pig who does not appreciate strawberries, Sax does not appreciate different opinions——-that show up America in a negative way. Imagine if we were all clones of Sax. As Paul Keating would say, God help Australia.

  217. Sax says:

    See how you like these apples ?

    Where does it give the US these supposed rights you speak of ?

    DESIRING further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area.

    Hell, that’s in the bloody preamble ! Didn’t you get that far ?

    And then folks, the next comment is a bloody gem ?

    Yes we do. We can ask them to leave at any time (not that we’re likely to). Diplomatic immunity is a legal fiction that is upheld for the sake of being “diplomatic”.

    This should refresh everyone’s memory, and for a laugh ?

    About the rape ? We have legal agreements in place, for extradition with the US. They have nothing to do with what we are discussing here. You don’t know about those ? They are civilian.

    Man, you really have to do your research better JM ? You’re getting worse !

    Consultation on matters of mutual defence interests within the Australaisian sphere.

    A tight scope ? 😆 It is that wide a scope, you could park the bloody space shuttle in it, and still have wiggle room. It is implied, as is the military scope of the text. How else would you describe our efforts in Korea, Vietnam and so on ?

    I’m not the fool JM. You really need to learn how to read. Sh*t, the document is only one bloody page long ? What’s the matter, haven’t got the attention span for that ? Talking about the pot calling the kettle black ! 😆

    And now for your sidekick, the Sundance Kid ?

    Ah, lose the argument, change tack, and make it personal.
    What my feelings are about the arrangements in place, are irrelevent.
    Both you nongs have come up with outlandish statements, designed to raise mistrust, and untruths, about an arrangement that has lasted in different forms, for nearly a hundred years. It will outlast both you rednecks, as it will outlast me.

    Your line of

    While Sax points the finger at anyone who does agree with his political requirements, like a pig who does not appreciate strawberries, Sax does not appreciate different opinions——-that show up America in a negative way

    is nothing short of precious. Really. You should frame that.
    I wouldn’t repeat it out aloud anywhere though, especially perhaps on Anzac Day somewhere.

    Outlandish statements, such as the rhetoric coming from you two Clampetts, deserve to be challenged.
    As I said, if I was so incorrect in my arguments, where are your supporters, to point that out ? Hmm, sadly missing.
    C’mon guys, you are really getting a bit boring here.
    Be careful lads, thkat paranoia is showing again ?

  218. JM says:

    Sax: Hell, that’s in the bloody preamble ! Didn’t you get that far ?

    Because your comprehension skills are minimal. The preamble has no force and is not an agreement to anything.

    Let me quote:

    THE PARTIES TO THIS TREATY,
    REAFFIRMING ….

    NOTING …. ,

    RECOGNIZING …..,

    DESIRING ….,

    DESIRING further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area,

    THEREFORE DECLARE AND AGREE as follows:

    …..

    Article III
    The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

    Note that NOTHING before the words ‘THEREFORE DECLARE AND AGREE …’ is an agreement to anything. It’s just fluff.

    Article III is the real meat. And all it says is consult. Nothing about mutual aid, nothing about technology sharing, nothing (god forbid) about closer cultural relations or any of the other tripe you’ve come out with.

    Not. One. Word.

    Sax. Admit it. You have been drinking the Kool Aid too long.

  219. JM says:

    Oh and Sax, if you have any doubts about the status of preambles – namely that they are just feel good fluff – can I ask you to consider the proposal for a preamble to the Australian Constitution to recognise the Aboriginal people and how it came about?

    You’ll recall that about 20 years ago Bob Hawke proposed a treaty and people went bats**t, so he scaled it down to a constitutional alteration. They still went bats**t, so he backed off further and said “Oh no, not a REAL constitutional change, just a few words of fluff at the start, a preamble”.

    That’s the status of preambles. They have no force.

    (Mind you, a certain section of the community still go bats**t over a preamble. I guess they’re not going to be happy with anything short of total extermination or assimilation. But that’s another story and not for this thread, ok?)

  220. GD says:

    Mind you, a certain section of the community still go bats**t over a preamble. I guess they’re not going to be happy with anything short of total extermination or assimilation

    Well really, none of that inflammatory speech is needed, JM, seeing as you you’d be hard pressed to find a full-blood aborigine living in urban areas. They have ‘assimilated’ over the past two hundred years, and are indistinguishable from other citizens. See, they’re half cast, quarter cast and even less. You have to go to the outback to find so-called full-blood, if such people exist.

    We don’t need ‘preambles’ or constitutional change, we already are all equal under law, or we should be.

  221. Sax says:

    What a load of dribble. Your fumbling.
    Those terms are used in every contract, or treaty, written in the last n years. Even when buying your house perhaps ? Want to tell your bank, the contract is not legal and binding because of those preambles and terms contained within ?
    You wouldn’t be in your house for long.

    I note you use the word “proposed” in you’re rebut ?
    What, didn’t think I would notice that subtle little difference ? It could be preamble, a term, a condition or wtf, it is still part of the legality of the agreement. A preamble defines a document, and usually an initial summary of what is contained within it. It becomes just as binding, as the rest of the document. Might be the reason as to why the Aboriginal one failed perhaps ? It still comes under one of the five valid portions of a legally binding contract.

    Man, now you really are reaching for the bloody moon.

    You obviously didn’t read the above, so I am not going to repeat it. Perhaps, before making more of a goose of yourself, it might pay to go back and read it again. That is why the document is so short. The terms and conditions are so broad, you could park a jumbo in them. That is what gives the document longevity. If the terms were strictly defined, the treaty wouldn’t have lasted five minutes.

    Article III is the real meat. And all it says is consult. Nothing about mutual aid, nothing about technology sharing, nothing (god forbid) about closer cultural relations or any of the other tripe you’ve come out with

    That’s implied as I have said.
    Then how do you explain our close relationship with the US over the last n years ?
    How do you explain our aid that has gone hand in hand with the US over that period ?
    How do you explain our close cooperation between both our crime fighting agencies, military and so on ?
    How do you explain our close relationship with the US, over peace keeping forces the last n years ?
    How do you explain our close relationship between our respective science and business communities then ?

    Just for the fun of it ?

    Oh well, another JM theory (s) just went down the gurglur ?
    Perhaps time to go back to bed, and have another rethink ?
    Isn’t wonderful we don’t believe in yank bashing here.

  222. Sax says:

    Sorry, didn’t see yours GD.
    Can’t argue with any of that either.

  223. Sax says:

    BTW, no changes in the constitution, no matter how small, can be made in this country by parliament. They must be done through referenda.
    How many of those have succeeded since federation. Count em on one hand.
    Perhaps a reason as to why acts of parliament are so broad in there terms and conditions ?

  224. JM says:

    Sax you’re really struggling here.

    I can’t think of a single Real Estate contract I’ve ever seen that contains a preamble. But let’s say one did and it said something like:

    THE PARTIES TO THIS TREATY,

    DESIRING of a mutually beneficial arrangement

    THEREFORE DECLARE AND AGREE as follows:

    That party A will transfer ownership to party B, and party B will pay $x

    Now that “mutually beneficial arrangement” bit? Does that mean the Seller can stay while paying me a satisfactory rent? Maybe.

    BUT ONLY if it’s in the language after the word AGREE. The first bit doesn’t matter a hill of beans.

    Does it mean the Real Estate agent can move in with my daughter (she finds him very attractive and they really hit it off)? No.

    It’s not part of the contact.

    Yet that’s your characterization of the ANZUS treaty, that it says a whole swag of things that it doesn’t say and which are beyond its scope.

    You’re a fool.

    And you’ve painted yourself into a corner and you can’t get out. Give up.

  225. JM says:

    BTW Sax, if you really are this ill-informed about the nature of contracts and agreements, can you give me your contact details?

    I’ve got a few scams in my bottom drawer that it looks like you might fall for and I haven’t ripped anyone off blind in the longest time. I feel I’m getting out of practice.

  226. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    care to give us Your contact details before you ask for anyone else’s?
    You could also give us your often claimed but never specified scientific credentials at the same time…

  227. Sax says:

    I am not the one struggling.
    Man, you are so precious JM. Get your ar*se kicked in the main argument, and you still continue to argue the toss ?
    I have only one comment re your dribble.
    Ever heard the term “legal intent” ?
    BTW ? Already know of a lot of the Green movement’s scams. I certainly don’t need reminding of them here.

    He won’t give em Iain, cos he ain’t got em !
    Even I admit to not being a scientist, hell, put your mouse over my icon.
    But, I am pretty good at picking when I am being conned. Trust me, we are being bloody conned by the feel good brigade such as JM, and the like.

    I note after my questions, he dutifully ignored them, and changed tack ?

    Before getting a coffee, and getting ready for work JM ?
    Your article 3 is interesting, but did you bother to read article 2 ?
    Nothing about aid huh ?

    In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain, and develop their individual, and collective capacity, to resist armed attack.

    Miss that bit ?
    You want to walk your statement back, or do you want to make yourself look even more the goose ?

  228. JM says:

    Iain: care to give us Your contact details before you ask for anyone else’s?

    No. My contracts are confidential. The ANZUS Treaty is public – in 3 countries.

    Sax: self help and mutual aid

    Translation: each country is on it’s own unless it chooses to come to the aid of one of the others

    Or in other words: ANZUS is the Brooklyn Bridge of military treaties.

  229. JM says:

    Me: ANZUS is the Brooklyn Bridge of military treaties

    Or to amplify a bit: Why exactly do you think that Australia keeps joining the US conga line with small commitments of forces in relatively safe environments? Hmmm?

  230. Sax says:

    Perhaps because it saved our ar*se in WW2 when the japs bombed Darwin ?

    Also, the US congo line as you put it, is not the US’s congo line at all, rather the UN’s.
    Obviously, you don’t know how a treaty works. I am certainly no expert, but from what I remember my lecturers’ were trying to impart, was that a country or countries involved in a mutual treaty act as one. You stupid enough to attack one in the group, you attack all, similarly, one country in the treaty gets attacked, the rest come in to aid in its defence.
    Not that hard really.

    You call places like Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia, Fiji after the coup and so on, relatively safe environments ? Wow, that’s bloody cold. Not a very well thought out statement either. Perhaps you should rethink that one ?

  231. GD says:

    JM, what do you think Australia should do, with regards to defence? Seeing as how you hate the US so much, what is your alternative plan?

  232. JM says:

    Sax: You stupid enough to attack one in the group, you attack all, similarly, one country in the treaty gets attacked, the rest come in to aid in its defence

    Well generally speaking. But that’s not what ANZUS says. It says if Australia is threatened, the most it is entitled to from the US is a phone call.

    Sorry Sax. ANZUS is nothing like what you’ve been told all your life. And it’s nothing like what you’ve described it as.

  233. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    No. My contracts are confidential.

    Well then isn’t it hypocritical of you to demand of others that which you won’t offer for yourself?

    I think that it is the hight of hypocrisy, but then again hypocrisy is nothing new for you.
    Have a nice day now 😉

  234. Sax says:

    You must think us all a pretty brainless lot JM ?
    How else do you explain Vietnam and Laos ? Our kids died over there for the bloody fun of it ?
    Also, even earlier, how do you explain Korea ?

    About Anzus ? NO !
    We not only get the phone call, we get the cooperation and mutual aid. Obviously, you didn’t read the above quote. The word mutual means both ways.

    People such as yourself, (and Bob Brown for that matter), don’t understand, that treaties such as these have kept this region pretty safe, for over fifty years. Due to treaties like these, the Chinese didn’t get any lower than the 49th parallel, and Vietnam didn’t get any worse. BTW, the only reason for the failure of/in Vietnam, was the massive political upheval at home, both here, as well as the US. The region is not done with yet either.
    With countries such as Indonesia, Burma, as well as a couple of others stretching their over inflated egos, our defence capabilities are now more important than ever. Brown’s arrogance, that all will be ok, and that Gaia will care for us, is shortsighted, and dangerous.

  235. JM says:

    Iain: Well then isn’t it hypocritical of you to demand of others that which you won’t offer for yourself?

    I’ve made no demands. I’ve quoted a public document that Sax himself first referenced and quoted.

    You on the other hand demand that I break private agreements which contain confidentiality clauses – including the obligation not to reveal the agreement itself.

    Sorry Iain, you’re being just as foolish as Sax.

    Sax, you’re ranting. And losing.

  236. Richard Ryan says:

    ” The Daily coverage of the Vietnamese battlefield help convince the American public that the carnage was not worth the candle”——Walter Cronkite.

  237. Sax says:

    What an absolute crock JM
    In this hemisphere, we can see through blatant b/s such as your last.

    And JM is playing by Bob Brown’s game play book, and living on the other side of the planet, has absolutely no idea as to why most Australians see BB as a total d/head. Hence the reason why Dullard must have been so out of her mind in desperation, to even think of the current scenario. No wonder why she has no credibility ? Even the wacker Abbott wouldn’t go into that deal.

    Ranting huh ?
    As usual JM, upon loss of an argument, you begin attacking the commentator.
    What a bloody tosser.
    Another reason as to why the green movement cannot gain enough support to buy a postage stamp. Then there is your credibility.
    Do we really want that exposed here JM ?
    Put up, or shut up. Time for b/s emotive rhetoric without substantiation is over.

  238. Sax says:

    Didn’t stop our kids dying over there though did it ?
    But according to you guys, the treaties didn’t have any power, and it was people such as you two, that the war was lost.

  239. JM says:

    Sax: Time for b/s emotive rhetoric without substantiation is over

    I think that statement counts as “projection” Sax.

  240. Sax says:

    And again “puts up” with his unique brand of undenied logic.
    You razor wit and sarcasm are at a peak.
    Did you use the force for that zinger ?

  241. Sax says:

    BTW JM
    GD asked you a valid question, that you have again, dutifully ignored ?

    JM, what do you think Australia should do, with regards to defence?
    Seeing as how you hate the US so much, what is your alternative plan?

    I would be very much interested in your answer as well, although somewhat knowing your motus operandi, I doubt whether you will actually give one ?

  242. Iain Hall says:

    Talk about having tickets on yourself JM:

    I’ve made no demands. I’ve quoted a public document that Sax himself first referenced and quoted.

    Check back through you previous comments JM the demand is certainly there.

    You on the other hand demand that I break private agreements which contain confidentiality clauses – including the obligation not to reveal the agreement itself.

    What a load of pretentious bollocks!
    Firstly I make no such demand I merely cite you for hypocrisy when you ask Sax to nominate his qualifications while being so coy about your own, as for your secret squirrel stuff, take your hand off it mate. or you will go blind!

  243. GD says:

    secret squirrel 🙂

  244. JM says:

    Iain (or Ray) – can you fish my last comment out of the spam bucket please?

  245. Iain Hall says:

    I tried to recover your comment JM but the secret squirrels must have redacted it because I can’t find any comment there by you 😉

  246. GD says:

    I reckon it’s a plot by the Murdoch Press to silence all secret squirrels. It won’t be long before they’re silencing Craigys as well. It’s a dastardly plot by the conservatives to overthrow the government.

    Hang on, that’s not a bad idea!

  247. GD says:

    Just so we know what JM looks like…

  248. Sax says:

    OPEC took it !

  249. Sax says:

    congrats on the 250 Iain ?
    Anywhere near a record yet ?

  250. JM says:

    Ok Iain, I’ll repeat it

    1. Nearly all contracts are private between the parties. The contract you used to buy your house is private and is not published anywhere. All employment contracts are also private. Many include confidentiality provisions. I haven’t asked you about your house purchase and you would be absolutely right to refuse to tell me anything about it.

    In fact, all employment agreements and contracts that are with private employers and outside the union award system are private. That’s why it is a sackable offence in some workplaces to discuss your pay with a fellow worker (but I guess you know this already right? Or perhaps not?)

    2. Treaties are completely different. Since the first world war, which was caused in large part by secret military treaties, all international treaties have been public.

    There is no comparison between a private contract and an international treaty. None. Period. Full stop. Exclamation mark.

    Stop being silly.

    GD and Sax:

    JM, what do you think Australia should do, with regards to defence?

    We’re not talking about defence, we’re talking about sovereignty. And in any case ALL of the assistance that we had (and gave) to the UK and the US in both world wars was done before the ANZUS treaty was signed. We can conduct our defence and alliances and co-operations without reference to “Menzies Magic Medallion of Superpower Assistance (not guaranteed and no warranty)”

    Seeing as how you hate the US so much, what is your alternative plan?

    Hmm. Maybe you’re not projecting here, but you are certainly attributing motives I don’t hold. I don’t hate the US.

    But let me ask you:- do you have so little regard for Australia that you insist we bend over every time “great and powerful friends” ask us to? Wouldn’t we be better off considering our own interests in a mature and thoughtful fashion rather that a reactive and juvenile one?

  251. GD says:

    JM, if you don’t hate the US, you’ve sure got a funny way of showing it. Most Aussies are grateful for the help the US gave us in WW2. While we could have kept to ourselves during the Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghan conflicts, the fact remains that, in a scuffle, we have needed the Americans, and should the situation arise in the future, we would again.

    Bob Brown’s idea is that we water the plants and pray to Gaia, while ignoring the world situation. However, we live on a largely uninhabited continent. Pretending that Asia views us benevolently is foolish.

  252. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    1. Nearly all contracts are private between the parties. The contract you used to buy your house is private and is not published anywhere. All employment contracts are also private. Many include confidentiality provisions. I haven’t asked you about your house purchase and you would be absolutely right to refuse to tell me anything about it.

    I have never asked you about the details of your employment contract JM and frankly I don’t give a rats arse about who you work for or the conditions under which you are employed, why you think such things are at all relevant to a question of your scientific credentials looks like one of your typical bait and switch tactics. If I were to talk to any “qualified” person and ask then what their qualifications are why should they or anyone else claim that such things are “commercial in confidence”? Your excuse for not saying what you are qualified in is just as stupid and just makes you sound like a total bullshit artist. Lying 101 dictates that, the for an untruth to be convincing it should have a consistent internal logic. Your story about secret squirrel employment conditions lacks such logic.

    In fact, all employment agreements and contracts that are with private employers and outside the union award system are private. That’s why it is a sackable offence in some workplaces to discuss your pay with a fellow worker (but I guess you know this already right? Or perhaps not?)

    🙄
    I am not asking about your pay, or even who you work for…

  253. Sax says:

    And what’s more Iain, who the f**k cares ?
    JM is just attempting to again shift the focus away from his failing argument, by changing tack, and hoping like hell, no one notices.

    Obviously, he didn’t watch the video of the Japs bombing Darwin.
    Obviously, even after both myself, and GD reminded him of it, after the ANZUS treaty was signed, there were little skurmishes such as Korea, Vietnam and the like. He conveniently forgot about those, along with the entire “Domino Theory” by the look of it ?

    He obviously, can’t see the benefit of giving up a couple of hundred acres to assist in securing not only this country, but the entire region. Hell, as has been mentioned above, we wouldn’t even be doing that, rather sharing the sovereignty ?

    do you have so little regard for Australia that you insist we bend over every time “great and powerful friends” ask us to? Wouldn’t we be better off considering our own interests in a mature and thoughtful fashion rather that a reactive and juvenile one?

    I would. So now the entire defence capability of the norther half of the country is not in our interest JM ? 😆

    As has been mentioned also above, Australia has not the money to purchase newer defence materiel. We are in dire need of a base in the northern part of the country, as well as the equipment to put in it. Our bases in Darwin are old, and in dire need of upgrades. Successive governments of both persuasions, have shortchanged budgets to Defence for decades, and in the process, our defence capabilties have suffered. If giving up soverignty of a couple of hundred acres (which, again would not be the case anyhow), means we can get those upgrades cheaply, and help out a proven friend at the same time ?

    Bit of a no brainer if you ask me, and JM, thank God, most Australians see it the same way.

  254. Sax says:

    You ask us questions and we answer them JM
    We ask you questions and you dutifully ignore them.
    Grow a pair man. Our defence is a serious business, and one thank God, is not in the hands of you, and your mate Bob Brown !

  255. JM says:

    Iain: I have never asked you about the details of your employment contract JM

    Bollocks Iain, you have repeatedly asked me such questions, including on this thread. Why do you think we’re having this discussion if not because I refused to answer just such a question and you insisted on knowing why?

    Iain: I am not asking about your pay, or even who you work for…

    Oh no ……. butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth would it? Then what’s this comment about?:

    What a load of pretentious bollocks!

    And why are you accusing me of hypocrisy simply because I discuss matters of public knowledge while refusing to discuss private ones?

    Sax and GD – just grow a couple of brain cells between you please. I don’t measure my country’s national interest by how much I am personally willing to compromise its interests to a “great and powerful friend”.

    If the proverbial hits the fan between us and (say) Indonesia then the US will make a choice in its own interests and not necessarily in ours. And that’s not a decision I can blame them for, and I don’t. If you can’t see that then you’re just being infantile.

  256. Sax says:

    Again you ignore the simple questions, change the subject, and begin attempting to attack the commenter. Man, what a tosser.
    Game set and bloody match point JM 😆

    Losing sovereignty over a couple of hundred acres (which will not be the case anyway, as management will be joint) is your entire argument ?
    Oh man, that will really kill us. What a tragic loss.

    You’ve lost it ! In the process, your entire argument as well, not that you had much of one to begin with.
    We aren’t the ones missing the brain cells mate.

    Obviously, you weren’t alive during Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Rwanda, and god knows how many other I have forgotten. Living in your Green “lah-lah” palace somewhere, on top of the world, looking over us mere mortals, you can’t see what is really happening at your feet ?
    Speaking of growing a pair, you need to as well. EYES ?

    If we are attacked, by say Indonesia (if in fact they have anything that will get this far), just what do you think we will use to defend ourselves JM ? The bloody force ?
    Where is/has that technology come from ? Hmm, may it be the US ?
    Oops, forgot about that huh ?
    It is in their interest to defend us, just as it is in their interest to assist in the defence of other countries around the region.

    It’s a shame you know absolutely nothing about diplomacy, treaties, the military in general, and international friendship developed through allies. It is obvious that these are concepts you simply do not understand. But again, to a certain extent, the people making the decisions (except Browny and his brigade, which by the news, have just been knobbled anyway, with the resignation of the speaker of the house), do understand the importance of a true friendship and the importance of the ANZUS alliance, and NATO, and finally the UN.

    Thank God, noice makers such as yourself, have no sway in the decision making process, and are dutifully ignored.

  257. JM says:

    Sax: Losing sovereignty

    Well at least you concede the point. And it appears you don’t have solid principles but are just quibbling over the price.

  258. Sax says:

    Oh man JM you’re getting worse !
    You are just making it up as you go ?

    I don’t concede anything. The loss of sovereignty is your premise, not mine, and an incorrect one at that. The price ? The price of bloody what ? You are the one who is concerned about the loss of the land involved not me.

    You argued that if the yanks built a base here, Australia would lose severeignty over the land involved. Do you really need me to go back and link to it ? You’re wrong, again !
    The sovereignty would be joint
    So what else is your beef ?

    Please, instead of thinking everyone in the world is dumber than you are, at least make it something, that is not as easily checkable ? Your argument is just getting too easy to shoot down.
    You remind me of Sheldon Cooper.

  259. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Bollocks Iain, you have repeatedly asked me such questions, including on this thread. Why do you think we’re having this discussion if not because I refused to answer just such a question and you insisted on knowing why?

    NO that is just not true, I have only ever asked you to specify your qualifications. in particular you claim scientific ones that you won’t specify, I defy you to find a single instance of me asking about your employment because as I said in the last comment I don’t care who you work for.

    Oh no ……. butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth would it? Then what’s this comment about?:

    If you think that I have asked you about your employment then you will have no trouble providing an appropriate citation to prove your assertion. I suggest that you get searching because there are only 42,788 comments on this blog…

    And why are you accusing me of hypocrisy simply because I discuss matters of public knowledge while refusing to discuss private ones?

    But that is not why I call you hypocrite, I do that because You made Sax’s qualifications an issue and I merely pointed out how coy you are about citing your own oft claimed but never specified scientific credentials. Who you may work for is entirely unrelated to that matter and not something that I care about in the slightest.

  260. Richard Ryan says:

    AH WELL! One more USA base, for the terrorists to have a crack at———as the old saying goes, the the politician will lay down your life, for your country.

  261. Sax says:

    Somebody has to do it ? It is obvious that you two heroes haven’t the guts to put up your hands for the job ?
    Keep praying to Gaia, really, it will all work out in the end.

  262. JM says:

    Sax: my initial point on this thread was:

    Try sovereignty. Brown is right to be concerned, this is the first time a significant foreign military force will be on Australian soil.

    To which, after much ranting, obfuscation and tilting at windmills you eventually responded:


    Losing sovereignty

    Dunno about you but that’s a concession in my view. Your whole point is that the price is low. Interesting that you’d willingly sell out your country for a mess of potage.

    Iain, you know full well you have repeatedly asked for details of my private life, and in this thread you have challenged me to back up my views on private contracts by posting some example or examples of ones I have signed.

    I have refused. For very clear reasons. It is none of your business and your interest is purely prurient.

    This subject is closed.

  263. Sax says:

    I have refused. For very clear reasons. It is none of your business and your interest is purely prurient.

    Then why are you lusting after ours then ?
    Stop asking for ours, then would lend some credibility to your pathetic protestations.

    Due to the developments today, Brown has just been relegated to the irrelevance of the back benches, where he and his cronies belong. He may sulk there, and block legislation, which is his right to do so, but if he does, after a massive campaign by both major parties, at the next election, the greens would be relegated to the garbage bin of history for all time in Australia. How, now there’s a thought ? Go Bob Go !

    Don’t know if that was a quote or whatever, they weren’t my words.
    You obviously don’t consider a couple of hundred acreas, as stated, shared with a valued ally worthy ?
    That God, you would be in a very select few, that believe that.

    Your protestations about sovereignty are just as much a joke as well.
    Again, you selectively pick out bits, to support your premise. You left out the second part of that sentence very conveniently ? The sovereignty, as you put it, would be shared. Like any other shared facility in this country. Both Australian and American flags would fly at the front gate.
    That part obviously really irks you ? Even after being told about ten times, you still can’t fathom the concept ?

  264. JM says:

    Sax: Then why are you lusting after ours then ?
    Stop asking for ours

    What the hell are you talking about? When have I ever, ever asked for your personal details? Or Iains or anybody elses.

    Just go and rant in the corner Sax, there’s a good boy.

  265. Sax says:

    What the hell are you talking about? When have I ever, ever asked for your personal details? Or Iains or anybody elses.

    Oh, I don’t know, how about ?…..
    JM on November 20, 2011 at 10:03 pm said:
    BTW Sax, if you really are this ill-informed about the nature of contracts and agreements, can you give me your contact details?

    That should get you started ?

    And you wonder why no one takes you seriously on these pages.
    Get out of the way you angry, uninformed soul, or you could get run over on the road of history.

  266. Angel says:

    JM, It is probably about time to shut down this whole sovereignty clause you insist on;
    Under the definition of sovereignty there contains a concept that “…if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a sovereign state.”
    Clearly having the US base is indeed in our best interests so to deny the base would infact surrender the sovereignty of this country.

  267. JM says:

    Sax, can I take it you don’t understand sarcasm?

    Angel, sovereignty is a key legal concept that is the foundation of the state and its preservation the principle duty of the state. National interest is on the other hand a judgement call. Come back when you understand the distinction.

  268. Sax says:

    I do, but if you call that sarcasm ?

    As for your interpretation of sovereignty ? Want to try that in English, and not dribble ?
    Put simply, for you, is the fact that the land under such a shared base, is managed by both the US as well as the hosting nation of Australia. That’s it, pretty simple to understand. Which btw, without JM’s protestations otherwise, I think you do understand the principle. It is JM that doesn’t understand the concept.

  269. Angel says:

    Help me understand, was that sarcarm then?

    JM, if you have found a “key legal” loophole that says we cannot establish a US base here, then why have you not sent this information to the Greens? So until you manage to single handely save this country from a US invasion as the tree huggers so believe, I will stick to the notion that this is in our best interests. Understand???

  270. Sax says:

    I will stick to the notion that this is in our best interests. Understand???

    So, fortunately Angel, so do the rest of us.
    😉

  271. JM says:

    Sax and Angel.

    If a US Marine were to commit a serious criminal offence on the base, would an Australian court have jurisdiction? No. US Military law (and in very serious cases, US criminal law) would apply.

    If a US aircraft (say a B52) wants access to a US airfield, or to fly a combat mission against a foreign nation (quite possibly in violation of Australian national interest), would it need permission from Australian air control? No.

    This is a violation of sovereignty, pure and simple. And quite unlike the previous “shared” facilities such as those at Pine Gap.

  272. Sax says:

    Oh that is crap JM.

    Being former mil, one of the first lectures you get, is that fact that if you break civilian law, you cannot hide from that law on a military base. The difference being, that the laws (and punishment for that matter), in the military are more severe.

    On the base ?
    If the base is totally US owned/operated, then US law is observed.
    If the base is joint, (which is what this will be, like every other base in country), then the law observed, will be that of the host country. ie Australian.

    Off the base ?
    Then full and only Australian law applies, with legal assistance being granted through the US embassy. The same if one of us stuffs up in the US.
    Geez, I wish you would research your dribble better mate, really !
    😦

    As for your mystery flight. The aircraft would still have to get permission to enter our airspace and would be granted such. BTW ? Just like they are now, even without a base.

  273. Angel says:

    We do understand Sax, that we do.

    A point that I don’t, however, and maybe JM could help out with this one;
    By state do you mean government?
    By primary do you mean principle?

    JM on November 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm said:
    “After all, defence is the primary obligation of a government.”

    JM on November 25, 2011 at 10:41 pm said:
    “Angel, sovereignty is a key legal concept that is the foundation of the state and its preservation the principle duty of the state.”

    So is it defence or sovereignty? Now I am confused!!!

  274. JM says:

    Sax, have you heard of things like “Status of Forces” agreements that the US has in every country it has bases? These provide for exactly what I described – US forces are not subject to local law. You concede that point yourself:

    If the base is totally US owned/operated, then US law is observed.

    The US Marine base (and the airfields) are US “owned”.

    [re overfly rights] Just like they are now, even without a base

    Horseshit. They are not. They will be under this new agreement. They will have overfly rights.

    Angel: The “state” is a very well understood term. The government is simply the administrative body responsible for looking after it.

    Sovereignty is the key foundation of the state. Without sovereignty the state does not exist. Defence – ie. preservation of sovereignty – is the principle and primary duty of the state. Less confused now?

  275. JM says:

    And while I’m talking about this, why don’t you try reading this collection of contrary views from people who are hardly “radical communists” or “flakey greenies” or whatever other demonisation the Attack Possums in Andrew Bolt’s Top Paddock have dreamed up this week.

    Get used to it. This is a big deal, and very soundly disputed by a wide range of people.

  276. Sax says:

    This is a big deal, and very soundly disputed by a wide range of people.

    Fortunately, only by those with half a brain, that don’t know any better,
    have been brought up to hate the US, and
    have no sway, in how we go about cementing long held ties, with allies, and lastly,
    the biggy,
    the defence of this country.

    Your quote, leads to people whining about stats from bases, around the world, that have large populations attached to them. In some cases 20k and above. Of course you are going to have problems off the base. I know when I was in, if you happened to call into a pub on the way home from work, in uniform, you would always get a couple of local rednecks, hitting on you for a fight. Reasons ? Grog mainly, but usually, it was because the local girls always spent more time with the servicemen, than they did with them. That has been the case since man first started wearing uniforms.

    US forces are not subject to local law. You concede that point yourself:

    I love your selective quoting JM. Good skill that. A politician would be proud of that skill.
    In fact, again, you have it a*se about. 😆

    If US forces in this country are on their OWN base, then yes. But, you brought up this fact earlier, that the base will be joint, on Australian turf. Therefore, the personnel will be ruled, by not only military law, but also, the minute they walk out the front gate, Australian law.

    Horseshit. They are not. They will be under this new agreement. They will have overfly rights.

    Horsesh*t yourself. There are regular US flights into Darwin, Amberly as well as Pearce in WA. Have been for years.

    As to your article, hmm. Again, he is assuming that the base is going to be solely US.
    He assumes that taxes paid will go straight to US treasury. Maybe, but what about the logistics required to run such a base, and don’t forget, it will be a shared base at that. Things like the tonnes of food needed every week, incidentals such as gas, electricity, fuel, all manners of professional services, that they won’t bring with them. Who provides those ? Think of the jobs created by this instant new demand. Every base I lived on prided in the fact, that they used local produce, local tradesman as well as local services, such as schools libraries and the many other social welfare services required, for a small to medium population of people. The authors of your article have conveniently forgotten about that as well ?

    Don’t you love the rhetoric from wacked out academics. Those that spend their entire lives buried deep into books. Those that have no idea as to what is happening out in the real world, and take a week off work, when they get so much as a bloody paper cut ?
    The few of these egg heads that you lead to, seem to all have the same problem. They can’t see past the noses on their faces. We all know where the trouble is in the region, and we all know where the trouble, if any, will come from. A bit of preventative maintenance now, by sending a message to those in that region, eying off our country, that we are not going to be an easy target is not only prudent but well and truly overdue.

  277. Iain Hall says:

    still waiting for a response to my last comment to you on this thread JM 🙄

  278. Angel says:

    JM, I seem to be getting even more confused. “Defence – ie. preservation of sovereignty ” Defence is required to maintain sovereignty, yes?

    So we need the yanks to retain our sovereignty, yes?

  279. Angel says:

    JM, Sax is correct about the wacked out academics. The associate professor in Business cannot have any idea about business. Darwin is largely a transient society. This is a boost to the economy, not a detriment. Firstly she/he (Robin) has taken the Aboriginies into account for the figures, why, what is the relevance there? If Darwin faces social problems from this group, big deal, nothing to stop a US base over.
    A transient society boost economics, they should know that being a “expert” in business already. Look at the real estate trade, furniture removalists, telecommunications, utilities, tourism trade that attracts the friends/relatives that would not normally travel there, temporary holiday apartments waiting for accomodation, furniture retailers, building industry, etc. This flows onto ALL industries. I know the Darwin retailers would be very excited over the prospect of a base.

    The tax flow to the government will be quite considerable and the area will boom. This is progress and is deterred by Bob Brown once again.

  280. Sax says:

    I hadn’t even considered those either Angel. There are probably heaps more, that both of us haven’t considered either ?

    Iain, don’t hold your breath for your answer.
    We have both found out in this thread, JM’s motus operandi ?
    Ignore the facts, and just make it up as you go. If you fail, go back, and rehash them until we all get too bored to notice ?

  281. Iain Hall says:

    I definitely not holding my breath Sax…

  282. JM says:

    Angel: So we need the yanks to retain our sovereignty, yes?

    You’re confusing yourself now. Why do we need a foreign country to retain sovereignty? Why do he have to give up (part of) our sovereignty to retain it?

    You guys are just arguing in circles and against yourself, example after example that you bring up disprove your own points. Sax in particular is fond of saying one thing and contradicting himself the next.

  283. Sax says:

    And you are fond of repeating yourself time, and time again, even after having your arguments continually shot down, by evidence to the contrary.

    Again, for about the ninth time, by myself as well as Angel, and others, we won’t be giving up sovereignty, or anything else for that matter. Again, for you JM, ownership of the new base, will be joint. You simply can’t, or refuse to accept, that is the way it will work.

    You guys are just arguing in circles and against yourself, example after example that you bring up disprove your own points. Sax in particular is fond of saying one thing and contradicting himself the next.

    😆
    Think you have that the wrong way around.
    Never have I ever heard a case of “the pot calling the kettle black” in my life.
    Relish in your failure JM.
    Embrace your paranoia.

  284. Angel says:

    All I have done JM is paraphrased you, are you confused?

  285. JM says:

    Angel, I’m not sure if you’re just paraphrasing me or not, because I don’t think you’re doing it correctly. And I’m not sure what your position is, because neither you nor Sax appear to be capable of stating one clearly and sticking to it.

    Let me clarify by quoting one of Iain’s favourite papers The Daily Telegraph.

    AUSTRALIA and the US have struck a new military agreement, with American marine combat forces allowed to conduct their own military exercises on Australian soil for the first time.

    You can fap about with the word “joint” as much as you like, but this is entirely new. We have never previously allowed any foreign military forces to operate independently on Australian soil.

    Or is that too hard to understand? It seems even the foreign press understand it, don’t know why it seems to be beyond you.

  286. GD says:

    As I asked above:

    JM, relax, the US isn’t going to take over Australia……..Perhaps you could try answering…why the US presence is such a threat to our nation’s well-being

  287. Sax says:

    And I’m not sure what your position is, because neither you nor Sax appear to be capable of stating one clearly and sticking to it.

    Oh, effing bloody yawn JM.
    And again, you rehash old covered ground.

    From Bloomberg
    President Barack Obama said the U.S. troops that will be stationed in Australia’s northernmost city will help ensure the security of vital sea lanes, as the U.S. moves to blunt China’s expanding influence.

    Commercial traffic through the area is “critical to all our economies,” Obama said yesterday in Darwin, Australia. “Going forward our purpose is the same that it was 60 years ago: preservation of peace and security.”

    The initiative will anchor an American presence in the western Pacific that can help safeguard the flow of more than $5 trillion of commerce, about $1.2 trillion of it U.S. trade. Maritime security and territorial disputes in the South China Sea will be part of the discussion at the East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia, where Obama arrived last night.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-17/obama-says-u-s-troops-in-australia-will-keep-asia-pacific-region-secure.html

    Before the closure of the Philippines the yanks operated that solely.
    Add to that Japan, as well as Diego Garcia.
    as well as many others.
    Again, your argument, assuming you haven’t changed it, is sovereignty. A couple of thousand trained marines on our shores, to ensure China gets no fresh ideas ?
    Sh*t, open the bloody doors, put on a parade, buy them a slab. With respective federal governments, of both persuasions, over the last twenty some years, ripping the guts out of Australia’s ability to defend itself, bloody bring it on. If the “thong brigade” such as yourself get upset, start burning flags, and get in the way, put em in a bloody boozer van, and in jail.
    No skin off my nose.

  288. GD says:

    I agree, Sax!

  289. Sax says:

    Thanks GD, but another point we have all forgotten, is the massive increase in piracy in the waters to the north west. Add that to what was written above about the amount of trade going through the region, no wonder why they want a couple of thousand grunts on call ?

    Click to access piracy%20hot%20spots-alex%20dali.pdf

    Interesting read.

  290. GD says:

    Makes sense to me, Sax. But then again, I’m not a paranoid American-hating leftie like JM. It is the greatest irony that a Labor government has signed off on this deal. Bob Brown must be choking on his chai latte.

  291. Sax says:

    Add to that Dillard’s coup, with a new speaker, now makes the greens even more irrlevant.
    The minute we allow Brown and his gang dictate terms, especially when it comes to such vital policies, such as defence, is the day this country has gone down the gurgler, never to return.

    The article about the piracy was a real eye opener for me. I knew the problem existed, but had no idea as to the extent of the problem, and the amount of valuable trade there was at risk because of it. No wonder they want a fleet in the area ?

  292. GD says:

    Yes, I read it, but don’t expect the MSM to publicise stuff like that. It would ruin their campaign for an open-door, accept every asylum seeker deal. Which now seems to have happened.

  293. Angel says:

    Forget the paraphrasing then JM, lets take you straight to your own words “Defence – ie. preservation of sovereignty ”

    You yourself believe we need a defence to preserve our sovereignty (oops I’m back to paraphrasing). What better defence than that the yanks.

    Really it is not that hard to grasp.

  294. JM says:

    So who has sovereignty in Diego Garcia Sax? The entire population was removed.

    Do you actually understand what a principle is? Or are you just prepared to sell out anything to the highest bidder?

  295. JM says:

    Angel you’re a fool. You don’t preserve something by damaging it.

  296. GD says:

    JM, the US is not going to remove our entire population! Please, control yourself!

  297. Angel says:

    Good morning JM. Can you tell me how having the Americans will damage us, actually what is your problem with having them here?

    Do you believe that China will then invade us as Bob Brown does? Bob also thought it a good idea to push for single sex marriage then decided not to go there himself

  298. JM says:

    Oh, and BTW can one of you two nominate a single example of when we have allowed foreign military forces to operate independently?

    No. You can’t. Because it has never happened.

  299. Angel says:

    Well maybe the entire population minus the Greens.Cant see they would want that baggage.

  300. Angel says:

    JM, I’m always up for new experiences

  301. GD says:

    Once again, or is it for the third time, what do you fear from this US base? You’ve evaded the question all through this thread. Come on, JM, man up, and answer the bloody question.

  302. JM says:

    Angel – before we can get into issues like that we need some common ground and agreed facts, not the drivel that you and especially GD have come out with.

    I think we’ve established that

    * the ANZUS treaty does not oblige us to station US troops here
    * that ANZUS does not cover technology sharing, blah, blah, blah
    * that the only obligation placed on any party by the ANZUS treaty – US, Australia or New Zealand – is that of “consultation”
    * we have never before stationed US troops here on a permanent basis (temporary during WWII doesn’t count)
    * that we have never stationed foreign troops here with rights to independent operation
    * that we have never before granted overfly rights to a foreign air force

    Given all the above I think you should be able to agree that this represents a compromise of sovereignty no?

  303. GD says:

    Well, JM, oh wise one, how in layman’s terms does a US base affect us? In what ways does it disadvantage us? Is that an easy enough question?

  304. Sax says:

    BTW Iain, congrats on the 300 !! 😉

    JM is afraid that we are going to be invaded by the big bad americans, and that the base, is just the thin end of the wedge.

    As to the remainder of your valid questions, forget it, you are wasting your time, he won’t answer them guys. It’s brain is set in tunnel vision mode. Anti yank mode, and anything that may show, that this country has some fight in it, rather than the feel good lefty thinking, that submission is always the way to go, is unecessary fear mongering.
    He feels that we should not upset our Asian trading partners. Specifically China. Humpf ! At the moment, we all know, China needs us more than we need it. Life is a bitch ain’t it ?

    Allowing, probably our country’s bestest friend, to play soldier, in our massively, mostly uninhabited back yard, is the least we can do.

    For the last 300 comments we have put forward the issues involved in this scenario, and you have wandered off, in some sort of tourette inspired paranoia, about sovereignty over a couple of hundred acres. Fair enough, your opinion, but without so much of a second of consideration, of the positive aspects of this arrangement, not only for now, but also for the future, are ill conceived and fortunately, not what the MAJORITY of this country feels.

    Finally, the size of China’s military is about 2.2 million active troops.
    Think about that for a second ?
    What we got ? 30k ?

    Ffs JM, grow up and smell what you’re shovelling.

  305. Sax says:

    Another point to consider perhaps ?
    What about the financial renumeration with this plan ? I would put money on the fact, that the US will probably purchase the land concerned, or put up money, a lease arrangement, or other assets equivalent.

    What happens to your sovereignty issue then ? Do we refuse under foreign ownership laws ?

    A bit late for that considering the massive parcels of land, that we have sold such countries as the UK, Japan, and even China over the last thirty years or so ?

  306. Richard Ryan says:

    AMERICAN INTERBREEDING——-may in danger our wild life up there in the Northern Terrority.

  307. Iain Hall says:

    Well Sax at this rate we may have a record breaking Thread on our hands here 😉

  308. Sax says:

    You never answered my question, and said what that record was ?
    C’man man, give it up !
    😉

  309. Angel says:

    Richard, that is just sick and considering I am Tasmanian is saying something.

  310. Sax says:

    * the ANZUS treaty does not oblige us to station US troops here
    Cooperation for the defence of the region is implied.

    * that ANZUS does not cover technology sharing, blah, blah, blah
    Implied again under mutual cooperation. How else would you explain the f111’s and their upgrades, sold to us for a bloody song, sitting in the hangars at Amberly and Tindall ? The bloody fairy godmother gave them to us ?

    * that the only obligation placed on any party by the ANZUS treaty – US, Australia or New Zealand – is that of “consultation”
    What happened to the bit about “mutual cooperation and mutual aid” ? Forget about them again ?

    * we have never before stationed US troops here on a permanent basis (temporary during WWII doesn’t count)
    Apart from the sovereignty issue you haven’t said what your problem is with that, other than you hate the idea of US troops being stationed on Australian shores. With the recent closures of US installations such as Midway, Johnstone, and others, the yanks still want a presence in the western pacific region. The reasons were made pretty obvious as to why ? Yo can’t accept that premise. A shame, as the rest of us do accept that it is a valid premise, and have no problems with it at all.

    * that we have never stationed foreign troops here with rights to independent operation
    Perhaps not, but given what is going on out there, apart from your hatred of the US in general, as well as the phantom “sovereignty” issue, you can’t see the positives. Only a few negatives which will not be uniqued to this situation anyway.

    * that we have never before granted overfly rights to a foreign air force
    This has also been explained.
    Lastly, and something for you to think about perhaps ?

    What do you call last week’s visit by Air Force One ffs ?
    Another well thought out, repeated, and again defeated argument.
    Again, relish in your failure and paranoia !
    You all have a happy day now ?
    😉

  311. JM says:

    Sax I have addressed all your objections previously. If you’re impervious to the facts I can’t help you.

    And the Air Force One visit was planned. They filed a flight plan and arrived on the agreed schedule subject to Australian air traffic control. That doesn’t apply to “overfly rights”.

    The sovereignty issue is not a phantom, it is real. If you have any doubts, let me ask you a question:

    Under what circumstances would US troops compromise US national interest to assist Australia?

    Answer. None. They would always serve US national interest and Australia’s can go to hell.

    Can I give you a couple of historical examples?

    1. WWII where our then “great and powerful friend” Great Britain

    a.) abandoned Singapore (and us) and most of Asia
    b.) ordered the Australian Army to Burma without the foreknowledge and against the express wishes of the Australian Government

    2. East Timor. The US initially asked us to stay out in order to protect Indonesian interests – they sided with Indonesia in other words – and when we insisted, agreed only to not hinder us and to offer only token logistic support.

    Get the message? This is the world of Real Politick*, not some Menzian fantasy world

    * which is a rendition of a German term and not some corrupted spelling favored by radical marxists, so don’t bother jumping at it, you’ll only be demonstrating (again) your ignorance

  312. Sax says:

    I am not the one impervious to the facts JM.
    So, now the argument is with the poms ? ffs, now you really are reaching for the bloody moon.

    Answer. None. They would always serve US national interest and Australia’s can go to hell.

    So, now, preventing tyrants to gain power in the Asian/Pacific region, is not beneficial to the US ? Funnily enough, that is the reason as to why treaties, such as ANZUS, exist in the first place. Countries of like interests, forming together to promote, and defend those interests ?
    Sound familiar yet ?

    1. They were busy sort of getting the crap bombed out of them by the Germans. Don’t read history ? What the hell has that got anything to do with this anyway. We discussed that when you were shot down, over no foreign bases in Australia, namely Maralinga et al ? The US have been screwing us for years, by invading our traditional wheat markets. I see the ANZUS treaty is still there, and just as strong as ever, despite the invasion ? I am surprised, in an attempt to substantiate your arguments, you haven’t brought that up yet ?

    2.
    INTERFET, remember that term ? The intervention in E Timor, was UN sanctioned. The decision to intervene, or not to intervene, was not within the purview of the US.
    It was the UN’s decision. So, if you come up with outlandish premises such as this, perhaps a source for that would be prudent ?

    Australian Prime Minister John Howard gained the support of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and U. S. President Bill Clinton for an Australian led international peace keeper force to enter East Timor to end the violence. The United States offered crucial logistical and intelligence resources and an “over-horizon” deterrent presence, but did not commit forces to the operation. Finally, on 11 September, Bill Clinton announced:
    “I have made clear that my willingness to support future economic assistance from the international community will depend upon how Indonesia handles the situation from today.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Force_for_East_Timor

    Another JM theory bites the dust. This is getting laboriously predictable and repetative.

    Real Politik ? Ffs, at least learn how to bloody spell it !
    Yep, I jumped. Get over it.
    The definition shows exactly as to what is happening around our region now. A search for a happy balance.

    That’s enough to get the hair on the back of your neck flying for a while.

  313. JM says:

    Sax, you are clearly an i******

    > preventing tyrants to gain power in the Asian/Pacific region

    The US was perfectly fine with tyrants like Kei in Veitnam, Marcos in the Phillipines and more recently Sukarno in Indonesia. Sometimes our interests were aligned with theirs, sometimes not.

    In East Timor our interests were not aligned with those of the US.

    > Maralinga

    UK atomic testing, not US. And not permanent bases with the right of independent operation. Try to pay attention.

    > The US have been screwing us for years, by invading our traditional wheat markets.

    And so they have. But at this point your argument becomes contradictory. If ANZUS includes non-military matters – as you claim – then surely wheat qualifies. Why haven’t we invoked it then (I’ll give you a moment to grease the gears in your mind) ……

    Because ANZUS is purely military you nong

    Re. East Timor – where was the US air support? cf. Libya. Where were the US ground troops? cf. Iraq.

    I’ll give you a clue. Oil. Indonesia has a lot and would have a lot more so long as it could snaffle East Timor’s reserves. The US was perfectly comfortable with the Indonesian regime and thought they could get more out of East Timorese oil supplies if they were controlled by Indonesia than if they were controlled by East Timor.

    But Howard – to his credit, or perhaps because his back was to the wall over the issue domestically – told them we were going to invade regardless.

    (And Real Politick is the correct spelling, I speak German)

  314. JM says:

    And Sax, my specific question to you was not whether “Countries of like interests” would co-operate.

    Rather it was whether US troops would ever compromise US interests?

    Well? What do you think?

    Because you have been running the ridiculous line right throughout this thread …. That. They. Would.

    In reality, hell would freeze over first.

    You really are out to lunch.

  315. GD says:

    JM and Sax, you guys obviously have quite a wealth of knowledge about this issue…

    however, your back and forth is starting to remind me of this….

  316. JM says:

    Oh and Sax, this sovereignty thing is more serious than you might imagine.

    Early last century the US gained a lease on a military base in Cuba and established a permanent presence there. It’s still there.

    For the last 50 years since the revolution, Castro has been trying to get rid of it but he can’t because of the previous agreement signed decades before the revolution. And that’s for something that’s only based on a lease.

    It’s called Guantánamo Bay.

    So, yes. If you let the US in, you’ll never get rid of them if they want to stay.

  317. GD says:

    Yes, damn the US, how dare they upset Castro. After all he’s kept Cuba in poverty for fifty years. He deserves some consideration.

  318. Angel says:

    The Cubans? Aren’t they the ones that jump on boats to live in America.

  319. JM says:

    Guys if you can’t make intelligent comments, and simply resort to the humor of 5 year olds, I’m not bothering anymore.

    If you are determined to turn this into the sandpit of infantiles go take it up with Iain.

  320. Angel says:

    If American is doing so wrong by Cuba, why would the Cubans illegally flock to live there. Doesn’t make any sense to me that’s all. Appears that the residents of that country don’t mind at all, so why would you care JM, or is this just more resentment of the yanks. Nothing infantile about that.

  321. GD says:

    JM, if you are determined to turn this into the sandpit of Marxism, go take it up with Iain. Clearly, history shows that Cuba is the backside of the world. The USSR crumbled, communism has failed, yet old lefty farts like you still dream of the glory days, whatever the f*ck they were, and continue to hate the US. You are an anachronism, JM.

  322. Angel says:

    China still is.

    Are we hitting the spot JM?

  323. GD says:

    JM, take it up with Lee Rhiannon, she’s about the only sympathetic ear you’ll find in Australia.

  324. JM says:

    > Are we hitting the spot JM?

    If you’re determined to be idiotic jerks with no understanding of history, no loyalty to your country, and no respect for yourselves beyond a wish to substitute all of the above for an infantile mutual admiration society?

    Then I’d have to say, yes you are hitting the spot.

    You’re welcome to it.

  325. Sax says:

    Geez, did I switch this thing off too early last night or what ! Bugger !

    The Cubans? Aren’t they the ones that jump on boats to live in America

    What a zinger ! Thanks for that Angel, nearly lost the mornings first cuppa java over that one ! 😉

    i****** Being ex RAAF, from a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, I have been insulted by the best of em. But that one gets me ? Can I buy a vowel ?

    Geez JM and you have no idea of the concept of foreign diplomacy, politics, and just bloody plain old common sense, no matter how many times we have tried to tell you what is going on in the REAL world !

  326. Sax says:

    And now folks, he moves on to Cuba. I wonder who’s next, Russia ffs ?
    A simple rebut for you. Cuba is not an ally of the US, nor as far as I know, a signatory to any UN treaty, hence the reason as to why they received no quarter, nor they should. When Castro and his supporters get their heads out of the clouds, (or out of their ar*es which ever is closest), and join us in the real world, things may improve there.

    Ok to your latest dribble.
    They were happy not interfering, because simply, that is not their job. They are there to keep the peace, if and when it hits the fan. The tyrants you mentioned, even though despicable human beings in their own countries, were outwardly peaceful. They only created mayhem and destruction in their own countries. Even though the rest of us considered interference is/was warranted, that is not what happened, at least until their behaviour began to threaten the peace of the entire region.

    AS for Maralinga, try to pay attention yourself.
    You said there were no foreign bases on Australian soil. You didn’t specify american, you said ANY !

    Did you forget about the Vietnam War JM ? Geez, it was in all the papers ? Can hardly call out the US for ignoring it ?

    As for East Timor, again, you should do your research a little better. It was decided, that Australia do the dirty work. The US chose to support, but stay out of it. Obviously, you didn’t read the quote ?

    I am not going to keep on with this, it is just too easy to shoot down.
    With your entire argument, you have not put up one link to check, or in fact any checkable evidence to substantiate your outrageous, and discriminatory claims against us, or the US ?
    You are just making up your dribble as you go, and continue to change the subject to save embarrassment, and save your continual failing arguments !

  327. Sax says:

    Speaking of bloody nongs ? 😆

    Also, I don’t care where your from, do a bloody google on Realpolitik will ya. It’s a German phrase ffs. You supposedly being German should have already known that.
    Would save yourself further embarrassment ?

    Agreed, ANZUS is purely military, all one bloody page of it, BUT it does go hand in hand with other treaties such as SEATO. Oops forget that one ?

  328. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES! Vive le Cuba. better health and education system—–then the USA. AMERICA IS STUFFED, watch for more wars.

  329. Sax says:

    Sorry about all the coments, but couldn’t let this go…

    If you’re determined to be idiotic jerks with no understanding of history, no loyalty to your country, and no respect for yourselves beyond a wish to substitute all of the above for an infantile mutual admiration society?

    Ah, JM ain’t democracy a bitch ?

  330. Richard Ryan says:

    The Cubans——-or is it Europeans? Are they not the ones who jumped on boats in Europe, to live in America——-the rejects of Europe, ferals, no hopers, sex perverts, rogues and robbers——- and war criminals, we must not forget the war criminals, the vomit of Europe.

  331. Sax says:

    Oh and finally, as I have to start the day, the following is a response to your flight plan dribble…..
    from an article http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/21259.html

    As told to Shane Harris.

    I’d been in command of Air Force One for two years under President George W. Bush when we learned that he wanted to surprise the troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving dinner in 2003. I had to come up with a plan to fly into a combat zone, something Air Force One had never done.

    We first got word in early September. My navigator and I sat down and planned it. I looked at the airfield in Baghdad. I had to figure out: Where am I going to park a 747, and where am I going to get 50,000 gallons of fuel for the return flight? We knew we’d come in at night, because there was a fear that the aircraft would be a target for mortar fire. The President was adamant that if I felt there was potential for harm, we’d scrap the mission.

    We couldn’t tell anyone in Baghdad we were coming, but we needed to get clearances in advance to land. So I’d call on my cell phone, using a fake name, and ask the airport about the procedures for bringing in a large plane carrying a VIP. I’d say it was a senator or some celebrity coming over with the USO. Someone would call me back with the clearances, but we’d always cancel. They were none the wiser, but we figured out that the best way to sneak Air Force One in would be to tell them we were carrying a VIP.

    When it was time to go, we snuck the President out of his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and back to Andrews Air Force Base. We flew across the Atlantic using a Special Air Mission call sign. Everything was fine until we hit the British coast. It was daylight, and there was a British plane in the vicinity that we knew would see us. So we turned away. Five minutes later, we hear a call from the pilot to air-traffic control: “London, is that Air Force One?”

    Our hearts sank. My navigator set a flight plan with the controllers that said we were a Gulfstream V, a much smaller aircraft. The controller said to the British pilot, “No, that’s a Gulfstream V.” We could hear the pilot laughing. “Okay, London,” he said.

    We got to Iraq and shut off all the lights as we came in. All they could see on the ground was the silhouette of a large aircraft. It wasn’t until they came up to the plane that they realized it was the President of the United States.

    President Bush came up to the cockpit wearing a T-shirt and dress pants. He sat behind me in the jump seat and asked, “Hey, Tillman, what’s it like bringing the commander-in-chief into a combat zone?” I said, “It’s the best, Mr. President.”

    Colonel Mark Tillman (retired) was commander of Air Force One from 2001 to 2009.

    This article appears in the November 2011 issue of The Washingtonian.

    Oh well, there goes another well researched comment from JM

    Airforce One doesn’t need to get permission from anyone. It needs to lodge nothing. It just tells the country about five minutes before it is about to land.
    Again, I do wish you would research your dribble. The above was listed about third from the top in a google search.

    Next ?
    😆

  332. Sax says:

    Wow, what a p*sser of a yarn that is ?
    😉

  333. Iain Hall says:

    Gee I’m Glad I was not holding may breath for JM to reply to me on this thread!

  334. Sax says:

    You won’t either Iain.
    He is stuck on the “sovereignty” issue, and can’t see past it.
    His arguments have been that wild, that every man and his dog have come to play, just to have a piece of the action, to shoot him down.

    I personally loved the article re airforce one, and Bush skulking into Iraq.
    Being a pilot, I can only imagine my reaction, to the sight of airforce one in my cockpit windshield ? What a pisser that must have been.

    BTW, you still haven’t given up that magic number yet ?
    😉

  335. Iain Hall says:

    This is from my stats page Sax :
    Photobucket

    its official this is our longest running thread ever.

  336. Sax says:

    Well done young man, time to crack the champers ?
    😉

    Foreign policy and wars are always a good way to fire up the lefties and rednecks ?
    Congrats !

  337. Angel says:

    Idiotic Jerks? Nice one.
    GD mentioned your love of Marxism, now what communist country first springs to mind. Answer – China. Thats the first step JM.

    What is the topic of this blog? Answer – Bob Brown not wanting to offend China. That would be the second step JM.

    HItting the spot means revealing your desire to have Australia under communist rule, and an end to democracy.

    And you call me infantile when it has to be clearly spelt out to you step by step.

  338. JM says:

    Sax.

    Let me quote your quote:


    but we needed to get clearances in advance to land.

    …. My navigator set a flight plan with the controllers

    Overfly rights do not require clearances. Or flight plans. Let me quote you earlier in this thread to prove that point:


    I know for a fact, that any military aircraft, has precendence of commercial or private aircraft in our airspace,

    Which completely contradicts your own facts where clearances and flight plans are required.

    You can’t even keep your own arguments straight in your own head. What’s the matter? Too many loose synapses or just too few?

    Let me also note your ending of that sentence:

    …. regardless of what country it originates from

    Ahh would that include Chinese aircraft? With possibly hostile intent?

    You’re an i*****

  339. JM says:

    Angel: And you call me infantile when it has to be clearly spelt out to you step by step.

    When what has to be clearly spelt out to me? That you can put words in my mouth and then argue against your own strawman?

    P*** o***

    You can argue against what I actually say. Not what your wildest imagination says I said.

    Do you understand the difference?

    Don’t put words in my mouth.

    Pretty please. With sugar on top.

  340. JM says:

    Sax: You said there were no foreign bases on Australian soil.

    I said there had never been any permanent bases for foreign combat troops, particularly ones with the right of independent operation. Which is true.

    Pay attention to what I say and stop your knee from jerking.

  341. Sax says:

    And JM even after a night’s sleep has totally lost it. 😆

    Perhaps my knee is jerking, but that is better than what you’re jerking JM

    Combat troops
    What is the effing difference JM ? Troops are bloody troops. Talk about splitting hairs here.
    The minute you graduate from rookies, you are classified as being “deployable”. You trying to tell us, seriously, that a couple of thousand marines, stationed in Darwin aren’t going to be hardened, trained and experienced operational troops ? Not the top of the heap ? If not, what the bloody hell are they going to be there for, operational on a sparrows fart’s notice, for deployment, in the first place ? All for show ?
    😆
    C’mon man, take a whiff of what you are bloody shovelling.

    but we needed to get clearances in advance to land

    Wow, you are a game animal ? Calling the head pilot of Airforce Once a bloody liar now ?
    Wow again, man, you got balls. Not too many people on the bloody planet, would be game (or fair dinkum bloody stupid enough), to do that. I would believe his oratory over your pitiful bloody dribble any day. But then again, with what you have put forth in this thread, maybe that assessment is accurate !

    I know for a fact, that any military aircraft, has precendence of commercial or private aircraft in our airspace

    How is that contradictory ? Air Force One is a military aircraft, hence the call sign. Man, you really don’t know how it works do you ? From experience, commercial as well as private pilots get very nervous when they know they have military up there with them. Any bloody military. Remember Iran Air flight number 655 perhaps ?
    A few more examples can be found at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

    One of two things happen. Either the private and commercial aircraft are immediately commanded to land at the closest airfield, or they have their courses adjusted by air traffic control, in an attempt to avoid contact anywhere near the military aircraft. This was the example in the quote from the AF1 pilot’s experiences above.
    We have alliances with many countries. I know for a fact, when I was in, there is a timetable book, as thick as a bloody telephone book, of military flights regularly scheduled between Australia, and it’s neighbours.

    Don’t have to put words in your mouth JM .
    There is so much crap in there already, there simply isn’t the bloody room !
    You’all have a happy day now

  342. JM says:

    Sax, you know very well that there is a world of difference between allowing the stationing of intelligence and liason officers and a fully independent Marine Task Force. There is no hair splitting going on.

    You also know you have made quite a number of completely unsustainable and false claims on this thread and have been called on every one of them. ie. heaps of conflation and confusion on your side.

    What’s the matter? Can’t cut it with logical thought and debate so abuse is your only substitute?

  343. Sax says:

    Just following your lead JM
    I think your main problem JM, not knowing anything about Australian military, is that you don’t know what, and how it is populated. Not your fault….BUT ?

    As our respective governments/politicians over the last n years, have been cheapskates, wanting to spend our tax dollars on lavish overseas trips, embelleshing their retirement funds and personal bank balances, the construction of monoliths to remember them by when they are gone, and other minutia, things such as defence and defence personnel have been successfully short funded for years. So, the military in this country has only a few options. It is limited in numbers, say 100k for round numbers. It knows, that if it hits the fan in the future, it can and will get its numbers immediately jumped when and if that happens, and the government of the day loosens the purse strings.

    So what happens in the meanwhile ?

    In the interim, with its limited funding, it fills its ranks with specialists
    These are people specifically trained to do a job. When a war starts, if any, they can immediately forward that knowledge, and experience on to the mass of newbies if need be. We have no “grunts” in our forces. A few squadrons of ADG’s perhaps, and the Army and Navy equivalent, but very few cannon fodder foot soldiers. This is where the new marine base will help not only the US out, but us as well. They have been taught skills that our guys, what few of them there are, are lacking. We simply don’t have enough of them.

    That’s pretty much the cut and dried of it. Probably the reason as to why this whole thing is even being considered in the first place.
    As to your problem with that, who the hell knows.
    Sovereignty ffs ?
    That’s the bloody least of our problems.

  344. JM says:

    Sax, not only are you ranting you are completely ignorant.

    The Australian Defence Forces have a complement of about 80,000 – full time and reserve – not 100,000. With their equipment and training this is perfectly adequate for any conceivable threat we face.

    The days of “jumping” those numbers – ie. recruiting civilian cannon fodder – in the event of crisis, died with WWII. Not only is it unnecessary, but you cannot “impart skills” – ie. train – new recruits fast enough, nor well enough for them to be effective. (As to whether the ADF is “sadly lacking” the skills of US Marines, that is very, very arguable. The Australian Army has very different doctrines from the US military and a lot of the equipment is different as well – that is the same or similar is generally configured differently. No Aussies jumping into US planes here after a quick smoko in the “mess” here buddy.)

    And as I have very patiently explained to you, even though 2,500 US Marines will be in Darwin we cannot expect them to be available to serve our interests first over those of the US. They won’t. The best we get is that US interests are aligned with ours in which case they might help out, they might not. Depends.

    And that’s overlooking your evident reliance on the cannon fodder argument. 2,500 is much less than your mythical “jumped up” army. And what do you expect them to do exactly? Train a bunch of raw hoons recruited from western Sydney, or actually get there “in the thick of it”? Make up your mind.

    This is of a piece with your earlier “gee, there’ll be all these lovely new US warplanes parked on our airfields, and we’ll be able to use them won’t we!” wide-eyed glee. No they won’t. Those are expensive machines and will only be flown by US pilots with extensive training. 30 hours in a Spitfire ain’t going to cut it.

    Just go back to toy soldiers mate, you’re obviously happier there.

  345. Sax says:

    So much for trying to be civil.
    You really are a piece of work JM
    Lets deal with your latest uneducated dribble, one para at a time.

    Again JM, instead of coming up with a civil, cogent argument, begins to pick gnits. Ok, I grant 80k, woop de f’ing do !
    That makes my point of we needing all the bloody help we can get, more than it does yours, that we don’t !

    First things first.

    With their equipment and training this is perfectly adequate for any conceivable threat we face.

    Hmm, man oh man, you have absolutely no idea do you, sitting in your glass house there in Utopia ? You’re pointing your undeducated nose, down at every one who has served in the military, and you know what ? We all know better.
    We just laugh at your undeducated bloody dribble.

    It has been ascertained for years, that the immediate threat, comes, will come, from the near proximity of the north west. That particular country has a population estimated at, wait for it, 238 bloody million ! That is only ONE country btw, never mind the rest, as well as the nearly 1.4 BILLION sitting just to the north of it ? At the moment, sure, the threat is unlikely, but that may change. But no, JM suggests we say all is ok, nothing will ever happen. Gaia will protect us ?

    What we got ? Estimated 23 Million ! 😆
    There is no harm in considering concepts, such as reality, or perhaps, here is another one, prudence, beginning to sink in yet ? Heard of those have you ?

    Want to rethink your “adequate for any conceivable threat” line again ? Cos it’s starting to look pretty shaky there ? Actually, I don’t know why you would say something so bloody stupid, in the first place. Sort of shows your ignorance though.

    but you cannot “impart skills” – ie. train – new recruits fast enough, nor well enough for them to be effective

    It takes roughly, on average about 11 weeks, to train RAAF and Navy personnel in the basics. The Army longer. That’s all our Vietnam guys got, the Army, about 15 or so weeks from memory.

    No Aussies jumping into US planes here after a quick smoko in the “mess” here buddy. and further
    Those are expensive machines and will only be flown by US pilots with extensive training. 30 hours in a Spitfire ain’t going to cut it.

    WTF do you think our pilots are flying in Australia now you dill ? Bloody Migs ?
    Where do you think our guys get that training, and further, more advanced training from, bloody You Tube ? Or perhaps Top Gun in Hawaii ?

    And as I have very patiently explained to you, even though 2,500 US Marines will be in Darwin we cannot expect them to be available to serve our interests first over those of the US.

    Oh how very condascending, BUT, Finally, he is starting to get it ladies and gentlemen !
    The US’ interests are the same as ours in the region. Peace, and to repel anyone who has ideas of not only attacking us, but also our lesser defended neighbours. Might that not be the entire concept behind perhaps a Treaty ?
    Ever heard that term before JM

    And what do you expect them to do exactly? Train a bunch of raw hoons recruited from western Sydney, or actually get there “in the thick of it”?

    Like you JM, no point, they wouldn’t pass the psych test !
    You obviously do not understand the concepts of friendship and trust JM cos if you did, you wouldn’t even have come out with some of the statements that you have.

    I am certain I have forgotten something, but, am even more certain you will remind me of it.

  346. JM says:

    Sax, you’re an ignoramus. I’ve rebutted every one of those points. Mere repetition and recitation isn’t going to make them any less false than they were the first time around.

    I’m done with you. You can go back to your toys and the battlegrounds of your imagination now.

  347. Sax says:

    and you are a typically zonked out, stoned bloody long haired greeny JM
    Any wonder why your movement is not taken seriously.
    Get your head out of your ass and join us in the real world.

    Obviously, common sense is a gene your body is sadly lacking.
    Get back to your gum trees, I am certain they will love you for it ?

  348. Sax says:

    Happy 350 Iain.
    I think JM is out of anti yank hatred, paranoia, as well common sense, and most of all, supporters for his shortsighted views and arguments.
    😉

  349. GD says:

    I said this exchange between JM and Sax was like black spy vs white spy, but now I reckon it’s more like continuing episodes of Itchy and Scratchy 🙂

  350. Sax says:

    I was thinking more along the lines of Zigfried and Starker perhaps ? 😉

  351. Angel says:

    I tend to think of JM more like Wile E Coyote, doesn’t have a hope but continues the chase. Roadrunner (Sax) wil always be just that bit faster.

  352. GD says:

    Shades of Statler and Waldorf as well…

  353. Sax says:

    Don’t know about that Angel, but hey, at my age, thanks for the compliment ?
    😆

    Which one am I, (not that I suppose it matters ?) GD ?

  354. Sax says:

    I don’t know why the angst against military or ex military personnel ?
    Hell, we were only uniformed public servants, at the bidding of the dopey politicians.
    Where is society’s criticism of them in all this ?

  355. Angel says:

    Love those guys

    S: Brilliant!
    W: Ah, it was terrible.
    S: Well, it was good.
    W: Ah, it was very bad.
    S: Well, it was average.
    W: Ah, it was in the middle there.
    S: Ah, it wasn’t that great.
    W: I kind of liked it.
    S: It was terrible!
    W: I loved it!
    S: Get ’em off!
    W: MORE!

  356. GD says:

    Itchy and Scratchy? You’re Itchy, he slaughters Scratchy in all but one episode. Not bad odds. Waldorf and Statler, well that’s just a comment on our collective ages, aren’t we all getting a bit like that? I am. And proud of it!

  357. Angel says:

    Hey GD, I remember them

  358. GD says:

    Angel, I look like the one on the left. No pun intended. No moustache either. Hang on, I’m not talking about Itchy and Scratchy…

  359. Sax says:

    For you guys ?

    😉

  360. Angel says:

    My favourite was Animal, wildthing

  361. GD says:

    Animal was cool. I reckon he was modelled on Ginger Baker from Cream.
    And thanks, Sax, not that I get the point.

    Anyway, that was all a bit of light relief for the viewers at home. Now you and JM can get back to hitting each other over the head with your ideological clubs.

    More power to your arm Sax, we are on your side.

  362. Angel says:

    Yeah, I didn’t get that either Sax, we are right behind you though.

  363. Sax says:

    That was Teal’c from Stargate just echoing my sentiments of agreeing with you both, that’s all.
    😉

  364. Iain Hall says:

    Just 34 comments to get to the next magic number…
    😀

  365. Sax says:

    Sorry chief, unless JM wants to continue the “Big Bad USA invasion of poor little Australia” tack, me thinks this one is done ?
    A shame, but one you can be proud of, and should shut your detractors up for a while ?

  366. Iain Hall says:

    Ya can’t blame a fella for trying Sax 😉

    as for the detractors well they have run out of puff

  367. Sax says:

    Indeed !
    😉

  368. Sax says:

    Interesting though, and only just thought of this, how, in a much smaller scale though, the feelings and sentiments that were going around in the sixties, when our guys were sent to Vietnam for the first time, appeared on this page ?

    Remember how those poor guys got spat at coming home ? How it took twenty some years to get their well deserved coming home parade, and overdue slap on the back ?
    Everyone loves to bag the military, UNTIL it all hits the fan. Funny that eh ?
    Something to consider perhaps ?
    😉

  369. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Sax feelings have certainly changed since the sixties about the Vietnam vets, as you say when the brown stuff is flying we all change our minds…

  370. Richard Ryan says:

    Jane Fonda—-stopped the war in Vietnam!

  371. Iain Hall says:

    Utter bollocks Richard, I’m old enough to remember that war, are you?

  372. GD says:

    Back then it was the lefties and the media who led that disgraceful behaviour against the soldiers. While opposition to the war was eventually warranted, the treatment of the returning soldiers was deplorable. Then, like now, the left held sway over the popular media. The left were voted into government on a wave of euphoria ‘It’s Time’, and then just as promptly thrown out again.

    Labor 07 was again voted in on a wave of euphoria. We once again have a huge deficit, a public service bloated with those useless climate change departments and calls for the media to be censored, along with failed policies and carbon and mining taxes to boot.

    And once again Labor will be thrown out.

  373. Sax says:

    From memory, around 72-75, was a time that the media began to really get it’s teeth, in this country.

    The introduction of colour telly, in Australia, may have had something to do with it. People again began to park themselves back in front of the box, as news services were the first locally made tv shows, that were shown in full glorious colour.

    The ratbag set, tired of not being listened to, began to follow their counterparts in the US, and began to demonstrate about our involvement in Vietnam. They won in the end, and what happened once the US began to withdraw ? It lasted five minutes. Was it the right decision, who knows. Fortunately, the massive march of communism, has stopped, or slowed. Why ? How long that will last, who knows. But, a base in the north of Australia will not stop any future activity, if it starts all over again. What it will do however, is perhaps act as a possible future staging area, if it hits the fan again.

    With troubles, in the area of Cambodia, only late last century, as well as other whacked out politicians in the area stretching their arrogance outwards, I for one, hope that a base containing 2k or so trained marines, may jolt the future trouble makers back to reality a little. They may think before acting. We all remember the horrors of the Pol Pot regime don’t we ? Do we, as a planet, continue to allow this sort of crap to even start, let alone continue ? This isn’t a case of power, or glorification, it is a case of simple human decency and compassion.
    Even the ratbag set have to finally face the music sooner or later, and grow up. Decent human nature dictates, that if the region is being wronged, by a blood thirsty tyrant, such as Pol Pot, then all must be coordinated to throw these creeps in to the nearest bloody swamp.

    That is what this new base is about. A perfect deterrent, as well as a perfect staging point, for the future Pol Pots to see, if they try to pull the same crap again.
    Fear mongering ? Maybe, but again, a bit of prudence is always wise when you are dealing with bloody nutters !

  374. GD says:

    Not fear mongering at all, Sax. But the loonies will call it that, just like they’ll call my last comment on the bike post ‘hate speech inciting murder’

  375. Sax says:

    Unfortunately GD, sometimes plain old common sense is a little slow to take on. A group mentality maybe. Others may think that a couple of thousand of marines won’t achieve anything, and who knows, they may be right in that assessment. But, we have to start somewhere ?

    We all know full on nutters such as Bin Laden, are using the internet etc, in an attempt to rally support their cause. We also all know, that Asia is now the new fostering location for radical Islam. We are hardly in a position, nor should we, to lecture people living in that region who or who they shouldn’t pray to. Hardly ! But, if they don’t stop at Asia, and continue that route south east, as was the case of the fear in the fifties and sixties, re the Domino Theory, then we need to be in a position, as a country, to say, NO, that is not the way we want to go. 2k of marines won’t stop much, but it will give us breathing room whilst we gather support, or grow our own ?

    I know I am repeating myself again, but isn’t that what this whole thing is about ?
    Personally, instead of marines, I would have preferred the entire sixth bloody feet call Darwin home.
    Man, wouldn’t the s*it hit the fan then ?
    That really would be fun to watch ?

  376. Sax says:

    sorry that should be sixth fleet.
    Oops !
    😆

  377. JM says:

    Sax: We all know full on nutters such as Bin Laden, are using the internet etc,

    Ahh Sax, Bin Laden is dead. It was in all the papers.

    Now to the rest of the infants and slow witted, I am not anti-American. In fact, can I set a test? (concentrate there will be scoring and the winner gets a gold elephant stamp):-

    Find a single thing in this thread that I have said that a red-blooded, nay red-neck, American would object to as a description of his nations policy? Just one.

    Good luck.

    (BTW I don’t actually have a gold elephant stamp but I won’t need it because nobody is going to find anything)

  378. Sax says:

    Again I see JM, after having another argument shot down, resorts to picking gnits, cheap insults, and a crappy mouth.
    Did you read the two words before Bin Laden, may they have been such as
    Want my glasses ?

    Find a single thing in this thread that I have said that a red-blooded, nay red-neck, American would object to as a description of his nations policy? Just one.

    Oh s*it, where do I start ?
    If you’re right, and your not, then what the bloody hell is your problem ? Sovereignty over a couple of hundred acres ? Oh bloody yawn !

    As to the rest of your dribble, as usual, nothing of any substance, pure bad mouthed rhetoric designed to sidetrack us all, and not worthy of comment, all been discussed above. Oh, bloody yawn again !

    Stand by folks, another red necked, ignorant peace mongerer, is about to run over by the reality of the concept of prevention is better than cure
    So, a piece of advice.
    Unless you want to take your anger to Canberra, with a placard,
    Deal with it !

  379. JM says:

    So Sax, I take it you can’t find a single example then? Well why don’t you start apologising for the abuse you’ve given me over the last few days?

    Or aren’t you big enough for that?

  380. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I am still waiting four YOU to find examples to back up your claims about me wanting to know about your employment ect, yet all you do is desperately (and badly) argue with Sax, Hmm this thread has certainly seen you brought low, mainly through your own belligerent rancour…

  381. Sax says:

    He won’t Iain.
    That’s his motus operandi. Do a bait and switch, and hope to hell that no one notices.

    I am not here to do your research for you JM
    Every argument you have come up with, we have ALL shot down, and you have been made to look the goose. That continues.

    As for apologies ? 😆
    Yeah right, I think you have that backwards.
    What delightful arrogance.
    No wonder we are getting our ar*ses kicked in the middle east.

  382. Iain Hall says:

    Yeah but we are now magically close to the next magic number Sax… 😉

  383. Sax says:

    I’m trying Boss !?

    Somehow, I think that will be the least of your problems.
    The latte set have been relegated to the nong set, again, and they aren’t done with yet.
    It is like the old joke about there being no such thing as an ex wife.
    They terrorise you for the rest of your life as if you were still married.
    They never bloody go away.

  384. Iain Hall says:

    Come the revolution Sax then we will just line them up against the nearest wall…
    and make them drink instant coffee (Pablo or International Roast) No more lattes for the evil lefties 😉

  385. Sax says:

    Perhaps, come the revolution, using the same wall……
    home brand tea bags may be more appropriate ?

    Remember the old Klingon expression

    Revenge is a dish, best served cold ?
    😉

  386. JM says:

    Sax: I take it then that you aren’t that big

    Iain: You have a long history of trying to a.) figure out who I am and b.) accusing me of hiding behind “proxies” etc. (and using your supposed internet skills

    And after all, you are the person who once collected everything I’d ever said on this blog, highlighted all the personal information you could find and posted it publicly in the hope (I believe) that one of your (few) readers would come forward and point the finger.

    All the time while refusing to give any credence to my explanation of why I prefer privacy, which is related to my employment. You have on a couple of occasions asked me to post the relevant portions of my contracts.

    I don’t think there’s anything more to be said at this point.

  387. Sax says:

    Sax: I take it then that you aren’t that big

    Another cryptic zinger from JM, you will have to forgive me, it’s late, but, please explain ?

    Your entire argument regime in this thread is put forward one premise, and one only.
    After having that shot down in five minutes, you began to attack personalities, everyone, on this particular thread. Don’t expect any quarter to be given, when you get the same treatment thrown back in your face ?

    I don’t think there’s anything more to be said at this point

    You haven’t really said anything of worth yet.

    Take your time, and think about it, it’s bed time, and a bit of work on tomorrow morning, so have to get up early. The lads are home from their week away, and so the morning will be tied up with that, so you can knock yourself out.

  388. GD says:

    after all, you are the person who once collected everything I’d ever said on this blog, highlighted all the personal information you could find and posted it publicly

    Oh Lordy, spare us. JM, you wrote this stuff on this blog, it is therefore public. Are you a fool? Sorry, stupid question. And how about answering Ian’s question(s). He’s asked you many times, but instead you bluster and blunder at other commenters, never once backing up your so-called credentials.

  389. Sax says:

    Spot on GD.
    Don’t you just love the arrogance ?
    I think I have mentioned my creds on these pages a few times. I won’t repeat them now, as they are history, but everyone knows (including Iain) what I used to do for a living, another lifetime ago, and what I do now. Hell, I am just an old flight jock. But, beng ex mil, I still have ties with a lot of the guys I served with, so keep fresh with what’s going on out there.

    His single issue on this topic, appears to be soveignty.
    With our farmlands being sold to Asia at bargain basement prices,
    our trademarks sold to the US at bargain basement prices and so on and so forth, I personally find the sovereignty, of perhaps a couple of hundred acreas somewhere in the deserts outside Darwin, pretty minor in the scheme of things ?

    I can see his point. He thinks the entire NW of the country may end up like Midway, or Johnstone. Perhaps it makes us a target ? All fair points, but look what is happening in those areas about now. The entire of Johnstone will be/is being turned back into a forested island, and a national park will be created. All in all, a pretty ambitious plan. As to whether they pull it off, will be interested to see, but a worthy ambition to be sure ?
    As to becoming a target, we already are that.

    Most people see the value of alliances. We have had a valued alliance with the US ever since Federation. Certainly, it has been tested, but it is still there. If the yanks would stop invading our traditional markets, things would improve, but it could be worse. China is doing the same thing to our markets, and these detractors remain silent. How ironic ?

    Talk about bloody hypocrisy ?

  390. Sax says:

    BTW ? I wonder if BB’s press secretary is watching this page ?
    I note he, and his PR team, have been pretty quiet on this issue this week ?
    Might he be attempting to walk back his comments, and save face ?

  391. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iain: You have a long history of trying to a.) figure out who I am and b.) accusing me of hiding behind “proxies” etc. (and using your supposed internet skills

    Err No I don’t give a rats arse about who you are, nor do I care who any of my other anonymous posters here are as long as they play nice,however as soon as they start attacking me personally, as you have, then I start to think about who they are and wondering if they are someone else flying a flag of convenience.

    And after all, you are the person who once collected everything I’d ever said on this blog, highlighted all the personal information you could find and posted it publicly in the hope (I believe) that one of your (few) readers would come forward and point the finger.

    As GD pointed out as soon as you posted that information here it ceases to be something that you are keeping private, and as per my commenting conditions the information becomes my property to do with as I please. I collated your personal revelations to prove a point( that you had told us more about yourself than you thought you had done) and having done that I have made private that exercise.If someone were to “come forward” and “point the finger” It would be a better than even money bet that I would never out you because as annoying as you generally are you are there would be no mileage in it for me to do so.

    All the time while refusing to give any credence to my explanation of why I prefer privacy, which is related to my employment. You have on a couple of occasions asked me to post the relevant portions of my contracts.

    I don’t care who you work for or even what you do but it does you no favours to keep insisting upon referencing your own scientific credentials and then saying that you can’t tell us what those credentials are because of some secret squirrel nonsense.

  392. Sax says:

    Especially Iain, when he uses those “credentials” in an attempt to belittle the rest of us, including you.
    As he is often fond of accusing others, including me, and you, if he had em, he would show em.
    As for employer contracts to confidentialism (is there a word ?), what a crock !
    Since when is saying what you do for a living a breach of an employment contract ?
    For thousands of years, man upon meeting man, has uttered that question as a conversation starter. Ho ho hum !

  393. Iain Hall says:

    Precisely right about the traditional conversation opener Sax, In fact as a full time stay at home dad its one that I have to struggle with on occasion.

    Oh and we are so close now…

  394. Sax says:

    Better make it quick !
    Number two, is twenty minutes out.

  395. Sax says:

    Don’t know why you should struggle with it, other than perhaps male ego ?
    A valid and valued profession, and one of most importance !

  396. Sax says:

    Oh bugger it.
    Put us out of our misery will ya ?
    Ring the bell and congrats !

  397. Iain Hall says:

    I struggle with it because so many other men don’t value it as a “career” choice Sax.

  398. Sax says:

    Their loss !
    Congrats on the new record. May take a while to break this one I think.
    this for you in the spirit of it ?

    Gotta go !
    😉

  399. Iain Hall says:

    thanks for that Sax 😉

  400. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, 400 comments on one topic is something I’ve never seen at a private blog. Even mainstream blogs like Crikey don’t get anything like that. It helps of course to have a couple of nutters like Sax & JM going head-to-head and on and on and repeating themselves, but the fact is Iain’s blog is certainly one of the more lively ones on the Oz scene.

  401. Sax says:

    Back in the office for an analyser “pad” and ?
    Oh what a wowzer !
    You just commented here Ray, what does that make you ?
    I sense a bit of envy there ?
    😉

  402. Ray Dixon says:

    You just commented here Ray, what does that make you ?

    Normal.

    I sense a bit of envy there

    No, Sax, I am not envious of the way you & JM go on here. And on. And on. And on ……..

  403. Sax says:

    You’re definition of normal doesn’t meet any that I have researched in my lifetime.

    Sometimes Ray, an argument becomes more than a sum of one liners, as is your history. It can get technical, and it can get emotional. After all, if you don’t want to argue a position, wtf are you even doing here in the first place ?

    What we saw, in the above, were numerous people, researching and developing valid premises, to come to conclusions that were analysed and discussed. That is what is often referred to as intelligent banter ?

    If that is not to your taste, then wtf are you doing even being here ?
    Why is Iain even wasting his time, by researching these articles for us to argue, if you are going to swoop in, and say we are just rehashing everything. That’s what happens in a good argument. Theories get rehashed, repeated, reanalysed, shot down, confirmed and then everyone moves on. If that is not what you want to so, seriously, wtf are doing even being here. Seems like a waste of bloody time to me ?

  404. Ray Dixon says:

    if you don’t want to argue a position, wtf are you even doing here in the first place ?

    Oh for Christ’s sake, Sax, I DID argue my position (with JM) earlier in the thread. But when he finally answered me I realised he had no answers, as I said to him here:
    https://iainhall.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/bob-browns-paranoia-about-the-usa/#comment-68253

    If that’s all you’ve got to support your anti-US theories, I’m going to bed … yawn.

    Unlike you though, I realised that continuing to argue the toss with JM was like being in a Monty Python “yes it is – no it’s not” comedy sketch. Without the laughs.

  405. Sax says:

    Again with the “more intelligent” than everyone else line from you Ray. I really question the reason why you frequent these pages, in the first place, if you don’t enjoy the foray of a good argument ?

    Really, why do you bother ?

    Lastly, just because you don’t like a detailed long foray, doesn’t mean the rest of us think the same ?

    there is always the “off” switch mate, seriously. Lighten up ffs.

  406. JM says:

    Ray: Your earlier comment at https://iainhall.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/bob-browns-paranoia-about-the-usa/#comment-68253 said

    You’re just talking in generalities, JM, not specifics.

    I think that’s quite unfair. In fact I think I’m the only person on this entire thread who has argued in specifics while all of my opponents have tried valiantly to “broaden the debate” into nonsense.

  407. Sax says:

    In fact I think I’m the only person on this entire thread who has argued in specifics while all of my opponents have tried valiantly to “broaden the debate” into nonsense.

    Oh wow, you can’t be serious ?
    Your entire argument was based on the fairy tale of sovereignty , btw, an argument that was not only shot down by me, but bloody near everyone else as well.

    You were given specific after specific, and ignored all, continuing to return to your failed argument of sovereignty.
    You got your ar*se wooped.
    Get over it !

  408. JM says:

    Sax, Ray’s response about generalities was in direct response to this comment of mine:


    The purpose of the Marines is entirely different. It is to “engage and destroy the enemy” – that is the actual, stated objective of the US Military.

    Now a military guy – like yourself which you hint at being – will surely be familiar with the concept of “doctrine”, a set of guiding principles which inform and drive the actions of a military force. From the Wiki entry

    Offensive operations defeat and destroy enemy forces, and seize terrain, resources, and population centers. They impose the commander’s will on the enemy. Defensive operations defeat an enemy attack, gain time, economize forces, and develop conditions favorable for offensive or stability operations.

    This use of the word “destroy” was bluntly criticised by a senior UK officer in 2006 who pointed out that it

    a.) went beyond the normal Clausiwitzian conception of “defeat the enemy”, which is what every other nation holds as its doctrine, and

    b.) essentially cripples the US because it precludes more pragmatic outcomes short of complete destruction of the enemy

    I believe this criticism is fairly widespread in military circles. But you’d know that wouldn’t you Sax?

    Now personally, I don’t think I could have been more specific. I used a precise word in a precise context to have a precise meaning.

    No generalities.

  409. Sax says:

    And he changes the subject again ?

    The purpose of the Marines is entirely different. It is to “engage and destroy the enemy” – that is the actual, stated objective of the US Military.

    At a time of war, perhaps. During peacetime the objective of ALL UN aligned forces, is one of peace keeping rather than war mongering. But, I think you already know that, if you don’t, you should.

    Again, you forget, or can’t fathom, that the military, in all its glory, is an instrument of the government or state. It does not specify actions, nor does it dictate action. It gives options, then it does as it is told. That is why discipline requirements are so much harsher, than any civvy job ? We have to listen to “feel good” tossers all day, that when the crunch comes, chicken out anyway, along the lines of political correctness, and electoral votes.

    So, under those circumstances, and those circumstances only, the military does only what its government masters tell it to do. Also, the extent of its actions, as to how far it goes, in achieving those aims, is also dictated by its government masters. That is why Vietnam failed. That is why many other actions around the world have failed. The governments that authorised those actions chickened out, as they didn’t have the stomach for it, in the end.

    If you think the US, or Australia for that matter are bad, do a quick google on the tactics of such wonderful people such as Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hussein, Bin Laden, Milosovic and the many others since ww2, that have murdered and tortured with no regard. That is what is being fought for, and what we must be continued to be fought for.
    A shame you don’t see it ?

  410. JM says:

    > We have to listen to “feel good” tossers all day,

    Speak for yourself. Review your own panglossian statements on this thread and then look up the psychological meaning of the word “projection”. All of your views are “feel good”, derived IHMO from the war porn that Hollywood churns out.

    > That is why Vietnam failed.

    Ahhh the US version of the Dolchstoßlegende (aka the “November Criminals”) that drove the Freikorps and Hitler’s eventual rise to power.

    Wondered how long that would take to come crawling into this debate.

    No. The facts are that the US, like the German Army in 1918 before it, was defeated in the field by tactics, strategy and sheer application of force in times and places that they could not cope with. (The particulars are very different, but the guts of it are the same)

    The “stab-in-the-back” theory gives a great deal of comfort to the far right Rambo’s in the US, just as it previously gave comfort to the forerunners of the Nazi’s.

    But it is wrong. In both cases.

  411. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, I think it’s you who needs to lighten up. You’re getting all in a huff because of my one innocuous remark about you & JM repeating yourselves. Seriously, chill out.

    JM, sorry mate, that remark was made earlier in the thread. I agree you’ve since added a lot of weight to your argument (much more so than Sax) – although I still fundamentally disagree with you that the Darwin base is a bad thing.

  412. JM says:

    Oh and Sax, “engage and destroy” is the doctrine of the US military.

    It is not something that merely applies during times of war to be substituted by flower-power “peace keeping” in a global UN hugfest at all other times.

    Doctrine is the guidelines, principles and procedures that any army studies, refines, trains for and rehearses. At. All. Times.

    From the top down.

    Do you know anything at all about the military? Really?

  413. JM says:

    No probs, Ray.

  414. Sax says:

    Nice bait and switch Ray.
    Want to join the fray, learn a bit about the subject, rather than continally attack the commenter. If you can’t do anything but that, piss off !

    Engage and Destroy after a quick google, is a computer game.
    Seriously, you’re getting worse. Wanna change that ?
    Do YOU know anything about the military, REALLY ?

    Lets shoot down your latest dribble ?
    Doctrine of the US Military ?
    Marines – Semper Fidelis
    Know what that means ? Always faithful. = well there is one down the drain.
    US Airforce – Aim High = don’t need to explain that. Even you should get the idea. That’s two !
    US Navy – Honor, Courage, Commitment, Non sibi sed patriae. Hmm, that’s three !
    US Army – This We’ll defend
    There we go, batting a thousand, all wrong ! Wanna have another go perhaps ?

    Hmm, like the rest of your entire argument JM , lacking research, and again wrong !

  415. Sax says:

    Geez man, will you at least do a quick google before coming up with dribble like that ?
    Really, all it does it make you look even more the d/head !

  416. JM says:

    Sax, what you quote – “Semper Fidelis”, “Aim High”, “Honor, Courage, Commitment, Non sibi sed patriae”, “This We’ll Defend” – mottos.

    They are not doctrine.

    I’m forced to conclude that you are just another armchair Rambo doing some Googling. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Even when the topic has been spelt out for you in plain language of few syllables.

  417. JM says:

    And Sax, if you really don’t know what doctrine actually is perhaps I should refer you to the Wiki page.

    It’s a good place to start, but it might take you a while to get your head around the concept – if you ever do, that is.

  418. Sax says:

    Ha !
    I read your Wiki link, and your phrase doesn’t appear once within it ?
    Oh, yawn !
    Wanna have another go ?

  419. GD says:

    It is a guide to action, not hard and fast rules

    yep, I read the Wiki link too.

  420. JM says:

    Try this

    This Chiefs of Staff revision of the Rules of Engagement is also a good source (comes from 1964, ie the Vietnam era, but as far as I know it or something similar is still in force):-


    b. US forces operating in Southeast Asia are authorized to engage and destroy

    Then there’s Article 99 of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice:


    Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—

    ……..

    (8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

    ……

    shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

    It’s fundamental to the way the US military operate.

    Sorry Sax. You really don’t know a damn thing.

  421. Sax says:

    And just to think, our military trains, day in and day out,
    continually puts itself in harms way,
    to defend what ?

    the right to say the above ?
    Why tf do they bother, really ?
    What a bloody prize ?

  422. JM says:

    Sax you’re still out to lunch.

    The British officer’s article I referred you to earlier was published in Military Review which is a US Army magazine. It also led to quite some debate in US military circles, so I don’t think the Americans have any problem with it particularly – some (many) may disagree with it but they don’t have any problem discussing it. They certainly didn’t accuse the author of being a “lefty” or a soft “greenie” or anything like that.

    And I might point out, this is the sort of discussion is common. For example, the use of pilotless drones by the USAF has been questioned by a number of senior US military officers and thinkers as immoral as it isolates the combatant from the consequences of his/her actions without having to expose him/her self to danger (which is the old argument about WWII strategic bombing sharpened and writ large).

    The military – unlike armchair Rambo’s like yourself – are in the business of war. And they take a very serious, considered and intellectual approach to it. Unlike you.

    And we should be glad they do. Sly Stallone is an actor, and not a serious example.

  423. Sax says:

    😆 and rofl !
    It was a bloody war zone !
    That makes your entire argument, again moot !

    No more of your dribble sheets JM.
    What arguments you have regurgitated, along with your links, have been successfully shot down, and in the process, your argument is like your trousers, dangling precariously around your ankles.

    Man, now you really are reaching for the moon.
    AND MISSING !

  424. Sax says:

    And again folks, JM discreetly tries to change the subject, hoping like hell, no one notices ?
    😆
    I’m going to bed, have fun with it.

  425. JM says:

    Sax: No more of your dribble sheets JM.

    I really think you need to give it away. You’re below abuse now, you’re just reduced to ignoring everything anyone says to you and chucking peanuts instead.

  426. Sax says:

    Just to leave you with a thought.

    The Imams over there, are grabbing kids, as young as 8 years old,
    strapping the equivalent of c4 on them,
    sending them into populated squares of people, and
    remotely pushing the button, all the while whilst hiding in the shadows, too gutless to do it themselves ?

    Is that what your defending here ?
    And you call the yanks the baddies ?
    Grow up, and smell what you’re shovelling !
    Sweet dreams !

  427. Sax says:

    and you continue to ignore only history, but facts as well, in favour of lefty fiction, written in an attempt to gather support for Gaia, in the hope that closing your eyes, it all just goes away.

    Seriously. Take a look at what you have written, keeping history of the last fifty some years, and analyse it with that in mind. It is not all that difficult.

  428. GD says:

    JM, rather than using words which you don’t quite understand, ie ‘panglossian’ and inserting obtuse German terminology into your argument, perhaps you could offer a valid reason for not wanting the US base in NT. Copying and pasting from Wikipedia doesn’t count. Vilifying Sax doesn’t count.

    Even resident moderate lefty Ray sees nothing wrong with a US base on Australian soil, yet you are still spouting that old Commie dogma and once again showing your irrational hatred for the US, while ignoring the real threats from countries that are a far greater threat to Australia.

  429. GD says:

    JM, as a reader and commenter of the Sandpit, I don’t give a rats who someone says they are, but I do like to read lucid, coherent arguments rather than appeals to authority when that authority is oneself or Wikipedia. I don’t expect to see credentials, because they are, as you say, confidential, but I find it perplexing that you appeal to these ‘hidden’ credentials to bolster your leftist persuasions.

    Perhaps your reliance on Wikipedia recently is proof that you have no credentials, and are loath to be caught out.

    Wikipedia is as good as being caught out.

  430. JM says:

    Sax: Is that [suicide bombing] what your defending here ?
    And you call the yanks the baddies ?

    No and No. You’re the first to bring it up. Why are we discussing it?

    in favour of lefty fiction, written in an attempt to gather support for Gaia,

    Don’t think we’ve discussed that either, and I can’t see how it’s relevant. But perhaps a paranoid ranter like yourself could make the connection for me. Feel free.

    GD: words which you don’t quite understand, ie ‘panglossian’ and inserting obtuse German terminology into your argument

    1. Perhaps you could enlighten me with a definition of panglossian then? And then explain how that definition does not apply to Sax’s “yeah sure the Yanks can come in, ride roughshod over our country, it’s laws and our natural right to do what we choose“?

    2. The German I’ve used is the correct term for the “stab-in-the-back” myth. It directly translates as that actually. And it is something that is well known to those interested in 20th Century history. As is the parallel with the view in some US far right circles of the reasons why they (and us) lost in Vietnam. (To be truthful, when your boy Mr T. Abbott used this same phrase some months ago I was horrified – given where it comes from – and thought he needed to be vilified for it.)

    And GD I only refer to Wikipedia for educational purposes. Buuuuuut … if you want your own definitions, then you could at least define them

    Even resident moderate lefty Ray sees nothing wrong with a US base on Australian soil

    Obviously Ray and I disagree on that. So what? It’s a debate that can be held.

    What cannot be tolerated by any thinking person is Sax’s belligerent attempts to define his own facts. At that point there is nowhere to go but throwing peanuts – as we have seen Sax do.

  431. Richard Ryan says:

    IN the art of killing, you can’t beat the Americans. August 6 1945, the Yanks dropped not one, but two weapons of mass genocide on Japan——my mantra, do unto them, as they do to you. Will be no foreign troops on Australian soil if I have my way—- as for Sax, he is everything I hate in a human being.

  432. Richard Ryan says:

    YOU heard it here——the Yanks are the baddies.

  433. Sax says:

    In drops RR, with a thoughtful, provoking comment, designed to raise paranoia, fear, and very little else. As usual with nonsense, it failed.

    as for Sax, he is everything I hate in a human being.

    Oh God, I am crushed, I may never recover.

    No common sense in the argument, just hatred again. Obviously, someone young, inexperienced with how the world works, and totally oblivious to what actually happened in ww2 and later. I see you have conveniently left out the collective millions that were tortured, and died under Japanese and Germans hands RR.
    Grow up man, really.

    Why are we discussing it ?
    May it have something to do, with the fact that the enemy we are dealing with, use that as their main instrument of death these days perhaps ? Might it also have something to do with one of the reasons, as to why the yanks want a base in the region, so as to be able to get to the future trouble regions and help out if possible, as per UN charters ?
    Oh dear, it’s logic is getting even worse.

    What cannot be tolerated is JM’s lack of facts.
    Like a car’s mudguard, all shiny on top, and s*it underneath.

    What cannot be tolerated by any thinking person is Sax’s belligerent attempts to define his own facts. At that point there is nowhere to go but throwing peanuts – as we have seen Sax do.

    All my facts were sourced and verified.
    As for yours, what very few you could come up with were what ? Test papers, shrinks theories, and whacked out politicians never seen from or heard from again.
    Perhaps you should telephone Top Gun in Hawaii and ask them for a fact sheet ?
    Talk about throwing peanuts ? Pot, kettle black, remember that concept perhaps ?

    Seriously JM, the more you attempt, to get yourself out of that massive hole you have dug for yourself, the deeper you are slipping in to it.

    Fortunately, our defence in this country, is managed by people, who have been around the block more than once. They can cope with the rhetoric, and unessessary grandstanding by their political masters, even the rantings of bloody Bob Brown and his gang of loonies, and of course the likes of uninformed people such as yourself.

    Embrace your paranoia.

  434. Richard Ryan says:

    NO American bases on Australian soil——–we don’t want these war-mongers, alarming our wild-life up there in the Northern Terrority.

  435. Sax says:

    Got news for you kiddo.
    It’s going to be joint.
    Oh, what will you do with your paranoia and hatred then ?
    Something to look forward to no doubt ?

  436. Richard Ryan says:

    Sax! Let’s wait and see——it’s a small bee that stings the bull’. Did you find out who knocked those two buildings down in America, I was in Vietnam that day, It was two days later I heard of the drama,——-did not know, did not care, I hear it was an inside job, those dudes were,trained in America to fly planes. OH yes! the gutless backpackers from America, who were in Vietnam around that time, were telling me they came from Canada, that day, I poured scorn and hatred on them that day—— Paranoia? Hatred?==America!

  437. Richard Ryan says:

    NO AMERICAN BASES ON AUSTRALIAN SOIL: I repeat no American bases on Australian soil. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  438. Sax says:

    A greater concentration of ideological hatred, and biased dribble, I don’t think we have ever seen on these pages.
    Exactly one of the reasons as to why this is and should, go ahead.
    And go ahead it will.

    As to rhetoric re 9/11, what you heard huh ?
    Hmm, I suggest you get your hearing checked, you are talking through your ar*se !
    rofl

  439. Sax says:

    Also, I find your obvious hatred towards the US rather perplexing ?
    I guess you aren’t old enough, to remember the 67 war when Israel, provoked beyond apprehension by it’s Muslum neighbours, finally retaliated. The US stating that it would go in there again if need be, has been one of the only reasons as to why Israel is still an independent state, and not another Arab one.

    Another one of the “thong brigade” that needs to grow up and sniff what they are shovelling.

  440. Iain Hall says:

    This thread just keeps on giving 😀 😮

  441. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES! I was there during the evil, rutlhess and corrupt apartheid era, in South Africa The six day war, 1967 I think, a lot of those Zionists living there, were returning to fight in that war.The Zionist was at home in South Africa in those days, Zionism and Apartheid, birds of a feather really. Sax you sound like a Boer—(bore)!

  442. Sax says:

    So you don’t think the Jewish people deserve their own state ?
    And you’re jewish, if not why use the hebrew phrase of shalom then ?
    Speaking of bores, what a hypocrite.

  443. Sax says:

    Yep Iain, nothing like war, death and destruction, to get the rednecks all riled up.

  444. Angel says:

    “Will be no foreign troops on Australian soil if I have my way”
    That is so precious Richard. Are you going to chain yourself to an F111 ?

  445. GD says:

    Excellent Angel 🙂 🙂

  446. Angel says:

    Now this is what it looks like Richard, and I sure Sax will chip in for the cost of the chains. Best of luck.

  447. Sax says:

    Preferably, on the back, just as the afterburners are turned on ?
    Naw, that’s a bit mean.

    Happy 450

    Watch the ratbags swoop in now ?

  448. Richard Ryan says:

    The crumbling American Empire, Plans to open military industrial bases on Australian soil are not on. Sax the ” stinger” surface to air launcher will take care of that ‘ plane, launched while these planes are on the ground, on a holiday long week-end of course—like Pearl Harbour. These bases will make Australia a bigger target—-you don’t need a PhD. in warmongering to know that

  449. JM says:

    Sax: All my facts were sourced and verified.

    Like hell they were. You misquoted and completely misinterpreted the ANZUS treaty. You claimed there have been permanent foreign military bases on Australian soil before and couldn’t come up with a single example. And now you’re doing it with “UN Charters”.

    What UN Charter or part of one is relevant to a foreign military base in Darwin. (On second thoughts don’t tell me, you’ll only screw that what up as well.)

    Watch the ratbags swoop in now

  450. JM says:

    (Whoops pressed submit too early)

    Watch the ratbags swoop in now

    I thought there were about 4 of them who are regular denizens of this site?

  451. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Watch the ratbags swoop in now

    I thought there were about 4 of them who are regular denizens of this site?

    Get up from the Keyboard go to your bathroom and look in the mirror to find that which you seek 😉

    When are you going to present that evidence JM???

  452. Sax says:

    Well, at least RR you have dropped the shalom crap, now that argument has been shot down ? Reality is a bitch ain’t it ?

    You talking about stingers, reminds me of that scene in the movie Dr Strangelove, of the guy sitting on the cruise missile. Probably just as accurate as well.

    The countries that have that capability, are fully aware of not only our capability, but also those of our allies, to see one being launched within nano seconds of it being so. Another reason as to why a mobile naval force, with anti missile capability in the area of Australia, is perhaps not a bad idea for insurance purposes ? May that not be a good idea RR ? Have a think about that and get back to us perhaps ?

    Your argument re Pearl Harbour is mute. We all now have defence capabilities in place, that would spot that sort of attack, as soon as it was airborne. So you are going to have to do better than that. A bit of common sense is all that is required here, please, ffs !

    Australia is already a target. That has been discussed, to death, above, and you still can’t (or won’t) see it. Your problem, not ours.

    JM
    And the good times keep on coming.
    I quoted directly from the document you tool. I even gave you a link to everything I did quote, just so as you could verify it yourself. God knows, that got me into enough trouble, with Iain having to fish the comment out of the moderation bin, due to the 2 link rule.
    Where were your sources ? Apart from leftist ratbags and wanna bees, all bloody missing.
    So, be careful about criticising peoples quotations here mate, cos you are talking crap.

    As for examples on Australian soil, I have presented that as well. You chose to ignore that or more accurately, continue to argue the bloody toss, rather than deal with the reality of it all ? Not my problem yours. If you got your head out of your ar*se, you would see it. Bloody hell, everyone else has, and has moved on. About time you took the bullet, and did likewise don’t you think ?

    As for the ANZUS treaty, the whole thing is nothing but a page long. It has enough scope to park a jumbo in. That was interated above as well. How else to you explain Maralinga, Pine Gap, Vietnam, and a few million others.

    As for UN charters, again, how else do you explain their actions over say the last fifty years.
    A few exaples for you to choke on perhaps ?

    * de throning a few clowns such as Milosovic and Hussein ?
    * Somalia
    * Rwanda
    * Cambodia
    * Fiji
    * Suez
    * Haiti
    and on and so forth. Apparently, there 38 of them !
    Might pay for you to again not to rely on that massive intellect of yours and do some basic research for yourself. Hell, I will even give you a head start ?

    Click to access IAI0930.pdf

    The article is from a US perspective, but as they are pretty much the only ones that have stuck their necks out for the job, a fair cop.

    As Iain suggests JM, time for you to either put up, or shut the f up.
    All you have provided is emotive rhetoric, none of it substantiated. That little that was, was discussed and either agreed to, or more often than not, shot down in flames.
    Time to stop riding that dead horse mate, really !

  453. Iain Hall says:

    He must be riding that horse by now Sax because he has been beating it so hard and for so long that it is sliding incrementally forward with every blow…

  454. Sax says:

    It’s dead remember ?
    He’s probably out burying it ?
    😉

  455. Sax says:

    Have fun with it guys, if I don’t go out and help the missus in the garden, the divorce would be messy, or even worse, the pitchfork up my caboose even worse.
    Will catch up with the inevitable dribble from the left, later on.

  456. JM says:

    Sax: I quoted directly from the document you tool.

    No. You misquoted from it. As I explained before, everything before the word AGREE doesn’t mean diddly-squat.

    As for the ANZUS treaty, the whole thing is nothing but a page long. It has enough scope to park a jumbo in.

    No it doesn’t. It doesn’t have enough room to park an ant in, or else the Americans wouldn’t have signed it. They only did so as a sop to Menzies because they were keen to get something more substantial in place with the recently-defeated-joint-enemy aka the Japanese, without undue fuss and embarrassment from their erstwhile allies the Australians and New Zealanders.

    Read some history.

    Consultation is the only requirement on any party.

    Now re. “UN Charters”. As I recall there is only one. The one that established the UN.

    All the countries and events you reference are related to UN Security Council Resolutions (and some such as “Milosivic” ie. Kosovo are actually General Assembly resolutions and less important).

    Security Council resolutions are not “UN Charters”. Do some reading.

    In fact, why don’t I just quote the title of the reference you give (with appropriate bolding)

    Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council in the Last Twenty Years: A US Perspective

    You’re a nitwit. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

  457. Iain Hall says:

    Still here and waiting for you to back up those claims JM…
    or you could do the right thing and just concede that you can’t do so…
    Your choice

  458. Sax says:

    He won’t Iain. It would breach terms and conditions of a work contract, with his secret squirrel employer. Oh dear ! Like his entire argument, what a bloody crock !

    Again folks, rather than deal with a valid argument, JM argues the toss, by criticising, or rather more acurately, incorrectly analysing exactly what is being presented.
    JM obviously can’t differentiate between fact and fiction. I suggest you do a google on the legal term of “condition of a contract”, never know, you may learn something. The ANZUS treaty, has helped keeping the entire Pacific region in peace for over fifty years. A real shame you can’t see it ?

    I directly quoted from it, and even put the link in to point you towards it. A preamble, body, or even a conclusion, is still part of the agreement, and still just as binding. That has been pointed out to you, on a previous occasion as well, with examples given.

    BTW the japanese had nothing to do with it.
    Don’t forget, the united nations had just been formed, and there was a little skirmish on the horizon, called the Korean War ? Remember that ? It was to become the first real test, of the newly formed organisation, and what its future worth and effectiveness was going to be.
    Seriously JM you should really read some history yoiurself, and check your facts a little better, cos you are only embarrassing yourself here.

    Security Council resolutions are not “UN Charters”. Do some reading.

    Again, do some reading yourself kiddo. Again JM picks gnits ?
    UN resolutions are “present” edicts, that only bind the present. They are not a living document, that binds all signatories to future action. Charters do, as they become the final document. They formulate policy decisions, as well as boundaries for future action and decision making.
    Might that be what has happened over the last fifty or so years, since those edicts were passed ?

    Did you actually read the article, because by your dribble, it appears not.
    Really, you want to try reading it. You might learn something, because seriously JM, the basis for your recent arguments are getting even harder to fathom or to legitimise.

    As for being a “nitwit”, I am not the one who is wearing their credibility around their ankles JM you want to look in the mirror for that one.

    BTW ? Iain’s question is still waiting to be answered. It is even more valid, than it was when it was asked nearly a week ago.
    Whilst ever that continues to be ignored by you, your credibility will remain around your ankles.
    Just like your entire arugument ?

  459. JM says:

    Iain: Still here and waiting for you to back up those claims JM…

    I have. Would you care to specify those that I haven’t? In this thread?

    Sax: I suggest you do a google on the legal term of “condition of a contract”, never know, you may learn something.

    We’ve had this discussion. You clearly don’t know the meaning of a contract or you wouldn’t have claimed repeatedly that things before the word “AGREE” are part of the agreement. (Unless of course you’re speaking a language other than English.)

    Sax: The ANZUS treaty, has helped keeping the entire Pacific region in peace for over fifty years.

    Helped? Well yeah, of course. But a lot of other things have achieved that as well. Just to talk treaties for a moment, SEATO has had an effect as well as the long standing cultural links between the various Asian nations. Or do you discount them, and insist that only big brother “bwana white man” from over the seas can keep the peace?

    Again JM picks gnits ?

    A preamble, body, or even a conclusion, is still part of the agreement, and still just as binding.

    Agreements don’t contain ‘conclusions’. They contain settlements, which are usually not part of treaties unless the parties are carving up the spoils. The preamble is only informative, it is not binding. Get a lawyer.

    Charters do [bind the UN], as they become the final document.

    Novel application of this argument. Would you care to specify which particular “charter” bound all members of the UN to intervention in – I don’t know, let’s say – Fiji?

    BTW the japanese had nothing to do with it.

    Ahem. Would you care to explain that statement? It is well known that in the wake of the Chinese Revolution (you may have heard of it, but given your track record probably not), that the US was keen to conclude a substantive defence pact with Japan as part of their policy of containment. To which Australia and NZ promptly went batshit – “but we just fought a war against those guys, why are you signing treaties with them?”.

    ANZUS, which is really a dead lettuce leaf of a treaty, was the answer.

    I think you mean ‘nits’.

    And what’s Iain’s question – we’ve been through this before and I think I’ve answered it a couple of times. Re-read this thread.

  460. Sax says:

    I have. Would you care to specify those that I haven’t? In this thread?

    Iain Looks like you’re never going to get those valid questions answered.
    So, on those grounds, like the entirety of its argument, it is a figment of its imagination.

    That is what happens when a person, as well as their argument, are so out of wack with reality, that reality never comes into focus properly again.

    As to your Anzus dribble, that has been discussed to death, and your pitiful protestations of dribble, are not worth commenting on.
    Who brought up SEATO in the first place ? You taking credit for that now ? But hang on folks, YOU said that wasn’t relevent to the discussion ?

    settlements

    You can’t be serious.
    You don’t honestly think you are fooling anyone, with this little gem of logic/crap do you ? What a load of undeducated bloody dribble.
    You talking about treaties, or buying a bloody house ? 😆
    Geez man, do some research will ya, you’re getting worse.
    Go back. I quoted the five portions of a valid contract.
    Where did you study your contract law, university of bloody Jamaica ? 😆
    Again, you are making yourself look like the bloody dill.

    I don’t know, let’s say – Fiji?

    Ah, it’s commonly called a vote. Ever heard of the principle ?
    I listed the UN interventions in the last n years. Not enough evidence for you ?
    ho hum

    As for the Japanese, you were the one who brought it up. The UN didn’t fire up until after ww2 was over and done with.

    Finally, this little gem folks.

    It is well known that in the wake of the Chinese Revolution (you may have heard of it, but given your track record probably not), that the US was keen to conclude a substantive defence pact with Japan as part of their policy of containment.

    Do you know when this culturist revolution of yours took place ?
    Was it perhaps 1966-1976 ?
    What about the twenty years before that ?
    You conveniently forgot about those years ?
    Oh, you really are struggling.
    Sure you aren’t referring to the communist revolution, led by Mao Tse-tung in 49, by any chance ? (oh but, oh but……. 😦 )

    As part of the Japanese surrender, they were never again, allowed to rearm.
    So, what the f you are talking about there, who knows.
    BTW, that was 19 bloody 45 ! In 66 the japs were still under the protection of the US, still not allowed to arm in any form.

    Sure you are not referring to the battle between Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Tse tung, in 49, ultimately forcing Shek to flee to Taiwan ?

    Speaking of ‘nits’, seriously, man, if you are going to attempt to write a cogent argument, in favour of some twisted premise, please do us the common courtesy of researching some of your dribble, before you embarrass yourself, by hitting the submit button.

    Really, this isn’t funny anymore.

  461. GD says:

    what’s Iain’s question – we’ve been through this before and I think I’ve answered it a couple of times

    Iain’s most recent comment:

    waiting for you to back up those claims JM…
    or you could do the right thing and just concede that you can’t do so…

    JM, it was something about you claiming scientific expertise or qualification. Iain asked you way back to provide that. Not where you worked, not who you were or where you lived, just some proof you were what you said you were.

    By my reckoning it’s been a long wait….yawn…

  462. JM says:

    Sax, you’re ranting again. I asked about which particular UN Charter of the supposed many you were referring to, you responded:

    it’s commonly called a vote

    A vote is a vote, and if in the context of universal franchise it’s called democracy. A great principle, it is not however a “UN Charter”. C’mon Sax, which “UN Charter”?

    …. with this little gem of logic/crap do you

    I take it you’re backing away from your own words? Well if you have no point you should concede like a gentleman or just keep quiet.

    Do you know when this culturist revolution of yours took place ?
    Was it perhaps 1966-1976 ?

    No.

    What about the twenty years before that ?

    No.

    Sure you aren’t referring to the communist revolution, led by Mao Tse-tung in 49, by any chance ? (oh but, oh but……. )

    Yes. What else do you think I was referring to?

    As part of the Japanese surrender,

    No. The revolution occurred in the wake of the Japanese defeat but was not caused by it. It had been in progress for many years before then

    So, what the f you are talking about there, who knows.

    Well, I sure as hell don’t know what you’re talking about. It makes no sense, especially since it’s based on such a rambling disjointed account of history

    write a cogent argument

    Good advice. Perhaps you should heed it.

  463. JM says:

    GD: JM, it was something about you claiming scientific expertise or qualification. Iain asked you way back to provide that.

    Yes, I believe he did. And he has repeatedly for a long time now.

    Not where you worked, not who you were or where you lived, just some proof you were what you said you were.

    Can you tell me – please, because it’s an elusive concept to me – how I can provide proof of scientific expertise or qualification without saying who I am? Hmmm?

    My goodness, you lot really are a ship of fools.

  464. Angel says:

    GD – Maybe he’s a Russian spy???

  465. Sax says:

    Chinese one by the sounds of it GD. It speaks in combs ?
    Your premises, in your argument JM have been so vague, so filled with anger, that I don’t even think you know wtf you are on about.

    As for the UN, do some research will ya. You have no idea as to how it works, you are just further embarrassing yourself. AGAIN !
    The UN is not a democracy, nor is it a government JM really. ffs Its a forum. A gathering of nations, hopefully for the benefit of all on the planet.
    Might be the reason why it is called the United Nations perhaps ?

    It USES democratic principles, but distinguishes itself, or at least tries to, apart from political struggles or battles, purely for the benevolence of ALL nations on the planet. At least that was what it was set up to do.

    The chinese have gone through 2 major revolutions, since the advent of the UN. Those two I mentioned. Pity you didn’t have the intelligence to specify which bloody one you were talking about ? If you don’t know anything about the second, try looking it up, before talking another whole heap of dribble, about a subject you know nothing about ?
    But perhaps, in hindsight, I don’t honestly think you knew yourself, which one you were talking about. Again fumbling in the dark.

    Yes, I believe he did. And he has repeatedly for a long time now.
    Well, seeing as you are so keen to spy into/demand our creds, don’t you think it is time to produce your own, and answer his valid question, than hide behind anger, beligerance and arrogance ? Time to put up, or shut the f*** up buddy boy. If you can’t, time to return to the dunces corner, put your bloody green goblin hat on, sit there and be silent, whilst the adults chat.
    There’s a good lad !

  466. GD says:

    I thought about that JM, and as I have tertiary qualifications, I realised that it could be easily done to satisfy Iain without revealing myself, which is a joke really. Iain knows who I am, and probably most of the commenters here. Grow up old son, he doesn’t give a rat’s who you are, just what you say you are.

  467. JM says:

    Sax, let’s see. I said:

    It is well known that in the wake of the Chinese Revolution … that the US was keen to conclude a substantive defence pact with Japan

    Now ANZUS was signed in 1951 or thereabouts right? And the Chinese Revolution happened in 1949 or thereabouts right? And the Cultural Revolution was an extended period beginning around the middle 1960’s right?

    So what do you suppose I meant by “in the wake of”? That Mao and a quarter of the world’s population were in possession of a time machine to frighten the crap out of the US and provoke them into signing a defence pact with their recent enemy – Japan – and have to buy off its allies – that would be Australia and NZ – with a flimsy piece of paper that committed the US to very little?

    Really, a time machine?

    Or perhaps you could just draw the reasonable and rational conclusion that the words “Chinese Revolution” referred to the events of 1949 and not things that occurred 15 years or more later?

    But sorry, I must be wrong and have mistaken you for a rational person of some reasonable degree of intelligence. I do apologise. My bad.

  468. JM says:

    GD: Iain knows who I am,

    Yeah, Iain has made the suggestion to me many times that I tell him privately. He’s even tried to blackmail me on one occasion with a posting on an attack blog.

    However, I decline to go down that route because Iain has an absolutely appalling reputation for not respecting the privacy of people he doesn’t agree with. That is a sentiment he has expressed many times, including on this thread (and one you’ve agreed with yourself), so basically hell will freeze over first.

    In any case Iain by his own admission is in no position to assess the status, quality or relevance of my qualifications and experience. I’m not having the validity of my credentials assessed by the opinion of an unemployed welder.

    and probably most of the commenters here.

    I wonder why? Because I have no idea who you are.

  469. Sax says:

    It is well known that in the wake of the Chinese Revolution … that the US was keen to conclude a substantive defence pact with Japan

    Going to call you on that one.
    What’s your source please ?
    Cos it’s crap !
    As a consequence of the japanese surrender, they were knobbled when it came to their own defence. They were to disarm never again allowed to rearm. That was an unconditional condition, of acceptance of japanese surrender, in 45.
    That was why the US was responsible for their defence, especially during times of strained relations with China.

    What I think you are referring to, was the US’s keeness to ‘normalise’ relations with Japan.
    Not that it comes within the scope of this argument. Our argument is not with Japan, rather China.

    How the bloody hell did we get onto this in the first place.
    Man, your argument is so over the bloody place JM, that no one knows what your main premise is anymore. We are talking about an american base, on Australian soil, and the ramifications of that, in the region.

    It is going to be there, not only for our benefit, but to also allow the US to have a presence in the region, if it were to hit the fan again. Japan is knobbled, and has been since ww2, so that won’t be where the threat will come from, as we have discussed to bloody death. We all know where the threat will come from, and what to do, to attempt to cut that off before it happens. It the presence of a US base on Australian soil upsets the chinese, tough ti**ies.

    You have been running circles around that argument the entire thread, and have yet to come up with a valid argument to even reconsider the decision, let alone not allow it ?

    Trying to follow your argument JM you don’t require too much intelligence, you need to have a PhD in the bloody force ?

  470. Sax says:

    BTW you wrote this ?

    appalling reputation for not respecting the privacy of people he doesn’t agree with. That is a sentiment he has expressed many times, including on this thread (and one you’ve agreed with yourself), so basically hell will freeze over first.

    then you wrote this…

    Because I have no idea who you are.

    If Iain has such a bad reputation, for revealing all that don’t agree with him, how do you explain us then ? The only time I have ever seen anyone uncloaked on this site, is when they were acting like such a tool, that they deserved it.
    No other time, so again, you are contradicting yourself.
    And you wonder why you have very little credibility here ?
    Seriously, pretty weak excuses you’re giving ?

  471. GD says:

    JM, he just wants a little bit of something to show you’re the scientist that you told him you were. Sax could also do with a little bit of proof that you’re the geo-political expert you say you are. I, on the other hand, don’t need to know your music cred, because I can tell that you’ve played a mean guitar at some time. Also, I can tell that you know how to wind up a Marshall or a Fender Twin. In my case, it’s usually been a Mesa-Boogie, though I’ve just bought a lovely bluesy Fender Blues Junior.

    I also read music, and have made most of my career doing that.

  472. Sax says:

    Quite frankly GD, I really don’t give a rats who he is, or what he does.
    He has proven over this thread, that he is not a political expert, nor a military man, as he has no real knowledge, or experience in either. I am no expert either, by any means, but I have been around long enough, to know when I am being hustled.

    If he won’t give his own creds, then it is time for him to stop demanding everyone else on this page give theirs, don’t you think ?

    On that note, the paperwork is finally done, and time to go to bed.
    Have fun with it, see you later.

  473. GD says:

    I’m not having the validity of my credentials assessed by the opinion of…….

    JM, given the inordinate amount of time you spend arguing here, I think you should apologise for the above comment. Or f*ck off!

  474. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I have. Would you care to specify those that I haven’t? In this thread?

    To paraphrase because I can’t be bothered going that far back on this thread.You were insisting that I had asked you about who you work for and for other details of your employment. I challenged you to provide a citation to back up that claim and since then you have been doing your darnedest to avoid answering my challenge.

    Yeah, Iain has made the suggestion to me many times that I tell him privately. He’s even tried to blackmail me on one occasion with a posting on an attack blog.

    Citation required for this claim as well JM and as you say that I have made the suggestion “many times”it should be easy for you to do.

    However, I decline to go down that route because Iain has an absolutely appalling reputation for not respecting the privacy of people he doesn’t agree with. That is a sentiment he has expressed many times, including on this thread (and one you’ve agreed with yourself), so basically hell will freeze over first.

    Strangely its only among a certain clique of hackers and disaffected internet vigilantes and lefty malcontents that that I have that “appalling reputation” Hmm I wonder why ??? The fact of the matter is that I do respect confidences and you are confusing me keeping private that which is actually kept private by my commenters and you making public, in the comments of this blog, details about your life that I collated to prove a point. Something that You have publicly stated on the internet is just not private any more, or is that a distinction that you can’t wrap your tiny mind around?

    In any case Iain by his own admission is in no position to assess the status, quality or relevance of my qualifications and experience. I’m not having the validity of my credentials assessed by the opinion of an unemployed welder.

    😆

    If I am so unworthy of you then why pray tell do you put so much effort into trying to attack my opinions here at the Sandpit? In any event I keep on about your qualifications because you keep using them to back up your opinions but at the same time you are so coy about saying WHAT those qualifications are.

    Oh and just to be clear I have never been employed as a welder nor have I ever claimed to be one. I can weld but I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert, those are men of great talent and I aspire to weld as well as they can.

  475. Richard Ryan says:

    No Poofters? How many of these aliens have we on this blog-site anyway?

  476. Iain Hall says:

    I think that you are on the wrong thread here Richard

  477. Richard Ryan says:

    YOU are correct Iain—–one mans meat is another mans poison.

  478. Sax says:

    Hey guys, I have just figured out who JM IS ?

    It’s Chuck Barris !
    😉

  479. JM says:

    Iain: If I am so unworthy of you ….

    One of the points I have made to you about this topic on several occasions is that I don’t care about credentials, only the logic and rationality of the argument presented. Which is one of the reasons why you shouldn’t care about my credentials.

    You on the other hand are perfectly happy to slam people who believe are “unworthy” while promoting your own – frankly ill-informed – views on a variety of topics. I’m perfectly happy to argue with you and let my views stand and fall on their merits.

    You on the other hand insist that everyone other than yourself have “qualifications” (which I do have BTW, I’m just not going to talk about them) while giving yourself a free pass from the “university of life”

  480. JM says:

    Iain: I can weld but I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert,

    So can I although not well. So we’re fellow amateurs in that field! 🙂

  481. Sax says:

    How bloody condascending can one arrogant person be ?
    Seriously JM you are absolutely full of it.

    You have thrust these so called qualifications in everybody’s face now, for so long, and when you get challenged over it you cry foul ? Really, how quaint.

    You research skills are sub par, your argumentative skills similar. If you had these qualifications, your debate skills would far outweigh the rest of us. My degree is very old, and my marks not that great, as I was too interested in flying than reading books, but even I have whooped your ‘skills’ in this thread, along with the others. Especially Iain.

    You aren’t happy to let your argument stand at all. You criticise all without doing the necessary research, and any factual evidence to back it up with. That is a sure tip off that you are a lazy researcher, and one that a college or institution would soon show the door.

    Finally, if you have such a low opion of Iain wtf are you doing here ?
    Is this some sort of ego boost for you ? A supererior intellect against us minor unintelligences ? Easy meat perhaps ? Cos, I have to inform you, that nearly every thread I have seen you on, you have got your ar*se whooped by us underlings.
    I would back Iain’s skills and brains against yours any day.
    Your problem is your ego. You appear to have nothing of value to offer, so why you would have an ego in the first place has me beaten for logic.

    Get overe yourself ffs ! Come join us in the real world.

  482. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I think that like a lot of people you forget the things that you have said in the past,

    One of the points I have made to you about this topic on several occasions is that I don’t care about credentials, only the logic and rationality of the argument presented. Which is one of the reasons why you shouldn’t care about my credentials.

    Do I really have to go back and cite the numerous times that you have denounced people based upon their credentials or lack there of? Heck you do it to me in this thread when you refer to me as an “unemployed welder” I have seen you do it many times in reference to the Global warming issue so don’t try to feed us the line that you don’t care about credentials because its obvious that you care very deeply about credentials and you rank everyone’s opinion based upon what you perceive their qualification to be.

    You on the other hand are perfectly happy to slam people who believe are “unworthy” while promoting your own – frankly ill-informed – views on a variety of topics. I’m perfectly happy to argue with you and let my views stand and fall on their merits.

    You are wrong there I don’t “slam” people because I think them “unworthy” as devoted believer in egalitarianism (sorry Sax 😉 ) I just refuse to genuflect to anyone based upon the gongs that they claim and I actaully try to go straight to their argument because I don’t rate the “trust me I’m a expert” line that you yourself constantly run.

    You on the other hand insist that everyone other than yourself have “qualifications” (which I do have BTW, I’m just not going to talk about them) while giving yourself a free pass from the “university of life”

    The only reason that I have ever pursued you on the issue of your own qualification is because you constantly cite these unspecified qualifications as a reason that we should give your argument greater weight than someone like myself who is very modest about my own education. I have an Arts degree from the University of Queensland and I have been a life long autodidact so its entirely natural that I am opinionated, because I am opinionated I write this blog, its a daily amusement that keeps my brain active fo but you are absolutely mistaken if you think me arrogant enough to apply a different standard to myself than I do to others. I know my limitations in both knowledge and skill but I let neither prevent me trying to win any argument because its all a game to me and I take games very seriously.

  483. Sax says:

    Bugger you Mr Hall !
    Have to get the funk and wagnells out again
    IGBTYS ?

  484. Sax says:

    you constantly cite these unspecified qualifications, as a reason that we should give your argument greater weight than someone like myself who is very modest about my own education.

    It goes deeper than that Iain.
    It was an attempt, to belittle us, as well as our valid arguments, give his own the appearance of greater credence, in an attempt to gain a quick and decisive victory.

    It failed. Like his entire “sovereignty” argument.

    His Top Gun in Hawaii proved that to me, and made me sit to attention, to further and more closely, analyse his entire argument. Something I probably wouldn’t have necessarily bothered with, until at least, I saw him attempt to ram that little gem down our throats ?

  485. Sax says:

    Just realised something.
    Look at the date ?
    70 years to the day !
    Might pay to remember, in light of the trivialities discussed above perhaps ?

  486. Iain Hall says:

    I admit I had to look it up Sax but yes a most significant date to remember when we are discussing the place of the USA in Asia and the Pacific ocean
    surely we can make it now Sax san?

  487. Sax says:

    Just think, if they hadn’t been bombed, and not entered the war in the pacific ? ….

    これは、我々は今、右の話をされるものと考えられます?

    Shudder the thought.
    My jap is rusty but….
    Enjoy the hunt ?
    😉

  488. Iain Hall says:

    戦士の知恵は、常に通りのくだらないおしゃべりをする人の知恵よりも深いです。

  489. Sax says:

    I don’t think mine came out right, try that again ?

    これは今私たちの言語になる

    Looks like they haven’t got a word for “would” ?
    Didn’t know that

  490. Sax says:

    Really, I don’t know what the fuss is all about.
    When it comes down to it, the takeover by Australia won’t have to be done militarily, it will be done economically. It is already happening. Overseas interests are buying in bulk, our farms, our factories and brands, and every other dammed thing.

    Asian languages are being taught in our schools, even right down to some primary schools now, so it looks like it already a done deal.
    There will be no need for a military base, they will simply, as they have been doing, just come in and buy the place, right out from under our feet.
    That’s what happens when the politicians allow apathy, and personal power mongering to interfere with common sense judgement calls perhaps ?

  491. Sax says:

    😆

    It looks like, as a civilisation, that we can never learn from history can it ?
    But, as I put forth above, war is out of date. Now the attacks are done in various board rooms around the planet. That means infrasture remains intact, and the attack can be more stealthily carried out ?
    So close now ?

  492. Sax says:

    Last one. I have to get out of here, my spelling is beginning to get pretty rank.
    So, put us out of our misery Iain San, and we can leave this one alone, at least until the sun rises over the other side of the planet, for the left to come swooping in, on its magic carpet of triviality ?
    Congrats ! Gonna be tough to beat !
    😉

  493. Iain Hall says:

    知恵は、それは旅ではなく感度サックスを重要とその旅に、それは我々が悟りへの一つの真のパスを求めるように私たちの負担を軽く自分の友人の品質であるデスティネーションであることを告げ、私はこの特定の旅を共有しているために感謝あなたと。

  494. GD says:

    Is this what you said?

    Because if it is important with a sensitivity Sax not a trip, the wisdom tells that is the destination that it is light with the burden on us so that we demand the true pass of the one to realization, and is the quality of one’s friend to the trip, and I share this specific trip; with thanks you.

  495. Iain Hall says:

    Not quite GD
    what I said was more like this

    Wisdom tells us that it is the journey and not the destination that matters sensi sax and on that journey it is the quality of one’s friends that lightens our burdens as we seek the one true path to enlightenment, I am thankful to have shared this particular journey with you.

  496. GD says:

    Well that’s a relief, for a minute there I thought you’d lost your marbles, Iain san.

  497. Ray Dixon says:

    Or turned gay.

  498. Sax says:

    No more music videos, think we have done those to death, but what was that 80’s song ?

    I think I’m turning japanese,
    I think I’m turning japanes,
    I really think so !

    G’night all !
    Happy 500 Iain again
    Let em all read em and weep ?
    Konbanwa
    😉

  499. GD says:

    500 eh, Sax? well I could post the clip of Chick Corea playing ‘500 Hundred Miles High’, but I think Iain would prefer to wake up to this little treasure.

  500. GD says:

    gee I wish there was an undo on this blog….

  501. Iain Hall says:

    I love that song GD 😀

  502. Sax says:

    Nothing from JM for two days now ?
    Does that mean I (or more accurately common sense ?) wins ?

    Too early for this ?

    😉

  503. Iain Hall says:

    No I don’t think that its too early given the length of the thread Sax !

  504. JM says:

    Sax: Does that mean I (or more accurately common sense ?) wins ?

    No, not common sense. It means that you haven’t put up an argument I haven’t knocked down, and you haven’t put up an argument you can defend without resorting to stupidity.

    “Blustering Blowhard at the Barbeque” is not something that works in situations where the audience is paying attention rather than wishing you’d just be quiet.

  505. GD says:

    Blundering, blustering boofhead might work though….’cos that’s the consensus of the readership on this blog…oh, btw, ‘consensus’ is a leftist approved word. They use it to prove AGW

  506. GD says:

    JM, without being blunt about it, it seems that your badgering banter is bullsh*t, and you are a blithering idiot.

    Have you read the news today? Not only has your leftist government approved an American base on Australia soil, the global warming scam has been revealed to be just that, one bloody big scam. Talk about blustering bullsh*t.

    I  think it’s best you butt out from now on.

  507. Angel says:

    Not much “left” for the lefties to argue against now. Does this mean they are now in agreement?

  508. JM says:

    GD , try running a rational argument.

    And yes I have read the news.

    And no I’m not a leftist. Not that that’s a bad thing in and of itself anyway – conservatism has it’s place as do progressive views. We’d still be in caves if you had your way.

    Or perhaps you’d like to mount an argument for staying in the treetops and not venturing out onto to the scary, scary plains and veldt of Africa?

  509. GD says:

    you’re not a leftist? Hmmm…

    No, we wouldn’t be in caves, socialism hasn’t added diddley sh*t to civilisation. All socialism has done is check and stifle, sometimes good, yes, but never innovative. That is for the capitalists.

  510. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES! Paranoia? When you talk to God, it’s called prayer, when God talks to you, it’s called paranoia.

  511. GD says:

    When RR spouts rubbish it’s called vaguely amusing…although not nearly as good as his funny the other day…

  512. JM says:

    GD, I wasn’t talking about human social science here – aka socialism vs capitalism – but rather the difference between lemurs (who stayed in the trees) and meerkats (who went for the wide open plains)

    Now meerkats have pretty small d***s, they’re small animals after all, and cute as a button, but compared to lemurs they’re the Arnold Swatzenegger of the animal kingdom.

    So, let me get this right – you really are going to mount an argument that the lemurs got it right when they stayed in the trees?????

    Go for it. I’m all ears.

    Never mind “left” vs. “right” or “socialist” vs. “capitalist”, what I really, really want to know is…….

    Are you a lemur or a meerkat?

  513. JM says:

    And just so you get it right GD, this is a lemur:

    Wide eyed, fearful, clinging to the known and the safe, in the trees at night.

    And this is a meerkat:

    Out on the plains, in the day, ready to face down anything that comes along and deal with it whatever happens. (And might I point out an animal much admired by the Afrikaaners of South Africa for its bravery, boldness and tenacity)

  514. Sax says:

    Again JM with three comments in a row, switches horses mid stream, in an attempt to save face, as well as a failing argument.

    The only argument you managed to shoot down, was your own, what little of it there was.

    And GD your “the global warming scam has been revealed to be just that, one bloody big scam” isn’t that what I have been trying to tell you guys for months ?

  515. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You don’t need to be my friend you just need to know the right HTML code to an embed an image, surely you, with all of your wondrous science qualifications can work out something as simple as that? It is after all an entirely ubiquitous piece of code.

    Oh and I’m still waiting for you to prove your claim about me BTW or even answer my responses to your recent comemnts, funny how you wimp out when you have no answers.

  516. Sax says:

    He doesn’t wimp out Iain, he just ignores and changes the subject, AGAIN !
    As he has done above ?
    But hey, London Bridge is falling down.
    Protect us Mr JM.
    Oh dear !
    😦

  517. Angel says:

    Meerkats JM? Nice anology there. Meerkats are female dominated, look like rats, are cannibals, and as you point out have small di**ks.
    I’m staying up in the tree.

  518. Iain Hall says:

    I think that JM has just been watching too much Disney Guys, He probably has the Lion King on permanent high rotation and his phone set up to play Elton John’s theme when he gets the calls from his secret squirrel employers…

  519. GD says:

    you really are going to mount an argument that the lemurs got it right when they stayed in the trees?????

    No JM, I was talking about the American base on Aus soil, the loonie left’s crazy attitude to it, and socialism’s lack of innovation and progress, whether economic, social or technological.

    However, if you’d rather argue about lemurs and meerkats…..

  520. GD says:

    I’ll stay up in the tree with you Angel. We could build a house, while the loonie left run around in the dirt with the meerkats…

    I’m sure Disney covered this one

    from 5.55 mark

  521. Angel says:

    I got carried away with the vid and watched the whole 15 min of it. Now to find the movie. Read the book so many times as a kid.

    A modern solution, meant for zombies but am sure would do the trick.
    http://all-that-is-interesting.com/post/4956385434/the-first-zombie-proof-house

  522. GD says:

    Great house! That’d even keep the meerkats out. Guess we’ll leave the trees to the lemurs.

    Swiss Family Robinson is on utube in parts, looks like the whole film. 1960 it was made. It’s very corny but fun.

  523. GD says:

    Actually we’ll need a house like that in future, not to keep out zombies, but for when Bob Brown’s one world government comes in, and Sharia Law, aided by our new open borders policy.

  524. Angel says:

    I’m female. I’m screwed then.

  525. JM says:

    GD: Typical ratbag BBB. Comes across big but is actually a small animal frightened of its own shadow (which is why it lives in the dark) and absolutely convinced of the notion that coming down from the trees is a bad, bad idea.

  526. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    seeing that you are on deck when I am how about trying to provide that evidence? or getting back on topic?
    Or even just conceding that you were wrong…

  527. Sax says:

    He won’t / can’t do that Iain, his arrogance and ego won’t allow it.

    He has been proven wrong so many times, that to save face, all he can do (and has done), is change tack, hoping all the while no one is taking any notice.

  528. JM says:

    And I just thought I might tie up a few loose ends here while you clowns are amusing yourselves with your notion of “wit”.

    Back at the start of this thread made a couple of assertions about the nature of the ANZUS treaty – which I disputed. Those assertions were that ANZUS provides the US with the following rights.

    > The ability to come and go freely at will.
    > The ability to use Australia as a staging base for local deployment.
    > The use of Australian troops and personnel for deployment under joint agreement.
> and so on, and so on and so forth.

    Now, I thought it might be interesting to have a look at a treaty that ACTUALLY DOES provide the US with those rights – namely the “Security Treaty” signed in 1952 with Japan as part of the “normalization” of relations between the US, Japan and 46 other nations involved in the Pacific War.

    This is what a treaty that actually does supply Sax’s imagined powers – it states them outright, no fantasy involved

    Let me quote:

    the two countries have agreed as follows:
    Article I

    Japan grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right, upon the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace and of this Treaty, to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about Japan. Such forces may be utilized to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and to the security of Japan against armed attack from without, including assistance given at the express request of the Japanese Government to put down largescale internal riots and disturbances in Japan, caused through instigation or intervention by an outside power or powers.

    Article II

    During the exercise of the right referred to in Article I, Japan will not grant, without the prior consent of the United States of America, any bases or any rights, powers or authority whatsoever, in or relating to bases or the right of garrison or of maneuver, or transit of ground, air or naval forces to any third power.

    There are three further articles but they’re boring administrative stuff.

    The whole thing fits on one page, just like ANZUS, but it pretty much does exactly what Sax (and GD and the rest of you fools) think ANZUS does. ANZUS doesn’t, it’s not the same at all.

    You’ll note that this agreement is spectacularly unbalanced in the US favor, but then Japan did lose the war. It was later brought up to date in a more balanced fashion by the subsequent Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. This treaty is even more interesting because it explicitely commits both the US and Japan to come to each others military aid if the other is attacked*, which again ANZUS very pointedly does not.

    You guys are wrong. Comprehensively. I think it’s time you frightened little animals grew up, came down out of the trees and learned that Australia has long been playing with the big boys and it’s time we stood up and took some more responsibility for ourselves.

    (Let the whimpers from the frightened nocturnal mammals begin)

    * There’s an exception here in that Japan can only aid the US within the “Japanese area” as it’s Constitution prohibits foreign deployment of its troops, but that’s just a wrinkle.

  529. Richard Ryan says:

    ON the subject of Paranoia—-over on Piers blog, he points the finger of scorn at that young boy who got into trouble in Bali for buying that herbal weed, I find it humorous, Piers has admitted to using cocaine in the USA in the 1970s. Fatty Vautin was correct about Akerman, when he said he was big fat heap of shit, on tv some years down the track. Of course his bloggers hang on every word he says, like dags hanging off a sheep’s crutch, Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  530. Richard Ryan says:

    I called it herbal weed, because I can’t spell marajuana.

  531. Iain Hall says:

    Its off topic here Richard but I’ll just say that I don’t read Ackerman, however I am just as scornful about that dope smoking kid, not for smoking weed but for doing so in country that is so openly tough on those who do so, which was a very stupid thing to do.

  532. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I see that you are trying to change the subject again…
    This is what we have been doing to your arguments matey:
    Photobucket

  533. Sax says:

    I have to be honest JM after starting to read your above, repeated, effort to change the subject, I stopped reading.
    Anzus is less than a page long, and I quoted directly from it. You cannot see the inferences, and it is not our job to educate you in these matters. Perhaps a correspondance course may assist you ?
    Your argument re Japan, is mute. It again shows my arugment, about normalisation of relations with it, a defeated power, was more accurate.

    The only whimpers are coming from you JM as you continue to squirm around your failed arguments. You continue to dodge Iain’s rebuttals after your identity challenges, and continue to change ships mid stream.

    Like Bob Brown, you are a failure, and will always be a failure.
    Like Bob Brown, you will never reach the dizzy heights, simply because no one trusts you.
    That is why, like Bob Brown, and his movement, you will never have any credibility in this country. We can see through your bull*shit, your lies, and your squirming.

    As Iain suggests above, like Japan, you are defeated.
    Learn to live with it,
    Embrace your failure.
    Quicker you do, quicker you can learn from it, and move on to better things.
    Have to go work. Have fun with it.

  534. Sax says:

    Speaking of in the trees ?

    Australia has long been playing with the big boys and it’s time we stood up and took some more responsibility for ourselves.

    What a tosser.
    If you in fact knew anything about Australian politics, you would know that we can’t.
    Why ?
    Simple really.
    Thanks to two successive terms of a Labor government in this country,
    There is no bloody money left in the bank. They have pi*ssed it all up against the wall !

    Reality sux doesn’t it ?

  535. Sax says:

    During the exercise of the right referred to in Article I, Japan will not grant, without the prior consent of the United States of America, any bases or any rights, powers or authority whatsoever, in or relating to bases or the right of garrison or of maneuver, or transit of ground, air or naval forces to any third power

    Again proves my point that Japan, without the US’, or more recently now the UN, is NOT allowed to rearm.

    As googled, there are currently 3 US bases on Japanese soil. They are ?
    Camp Zama, Tokyo – US Army
    Torii Station, Okinawa – US Army
    Fort Buckner, Okinawa – US Army
    Actually, do a google,
    There are bloody 24 of them !
    Will even give you a head start ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_bases_of_the_United_States_in_Japan

    Oh how is ya going to explain them apples ?

    There goes another JM well thought out, and well educated response down the creek without the paddle ?
    😆 rofl

  536. Sax says:

    BTW ?
    There goes the JM /premise/entire argument regarding sovereignty as well ?
    With all those bases on japanese soil, it is still regarded as Japan isn’t it ?
    Oops !

    Sorry about all the comments, but had to slip that in.

  537. JM says:

    Sax:
    Anzus is less than a page long, and I quoted directly from it. You cannot see the inferences, and it is not our job to educate you in these matters. Perhaps a correspondance course may assist you ?
    Your argument re Japan, is mute. It again shows my arugment, about normalisation of relations with it, a defeated power, was more accurate.

    You mean ‘moot’. And I don’t think the (right) word means what you think it does. I was quoting the Security Treaty not the Treaty of San Francisco. You know the “substantive defense pact” that you insisted doesn’t exist. You know that one? The one that is also only a single page long but DOES provide explicit guarantees for Japan’s defense by the US – ie. COMPLETELY unlike ANZUS.

    Sax, you were the one who came out with a whole lot of fantasies about ANZUS, not one of which you can substantiate.

    Because. They. Are. Not. True. — They. Are. Fantasies.

    Get over it.

    And as for US bases being on Japanese soil, perhaps you’d like the US to treat Australia like a defeated nation? Hmmmmmm.

    Because that’s what stationing bases on foreign soil does, you twerp. When the US creates a Marine base here they are treating us like a defeated nation, not like an ally.

  538. Sax says:

    I meant mute as in silenced you tool !
    Not moot as in open to discussion.
    Speaking of twerps ?

    Again, your only self appointed argument, or sole remaining premise, for the last five hundred or so comments, has been sovereignty

    That was successfully shot down by my example above, as has every other argument you have presented. What else you got ?

    So, now you are on about a security treaty ?

    As for what you mean by security treaty wtf knows.
    If you mean SEATO, that is similar to ANZUS, merely consultation. But, as was seen with the experiences with ANZUS, especially Korea and Vietnam, and other examples I gave you (which I see you have conveniently forgotten/ignored again ?), both worked to coordinate activities, when it all hit the fan. But, being the egotistical nutter you are, you can’t see it JM

    So now you admit the bases are there ? Finally !
    As for Australia being a defeated nation, you obviously still haven’t looked up the word ally ?
    Perhaps you should do that before you call someone a twerp ?

  539. JM says:

    Sax, you are cognitively challenged. Every single one of the facts you raise support my argument and undermine yours (if not destroy it outright)

    There is more to intelligence (and simple consciousness) than simple recitation of facts you found on Google, Wiki, lying on the floor or some other less salubrious place. You have to relate them to a coherent argument. You can’t do that. At least on the evidence of this thread your mind is not capable of anything much beyond the simple motor functions of the lizard brain.

    I would suggest a remedial education, but I think this thread has shown you’re incapable of it.

  540. JM says:

    Sax [Referring to Article I of the Security Treaty]: Again proves my point that Japan, without the US’, or more recently now the UN, is NOT allowed to rearm.

    No it doesn’t you complete m*****. Japan is prohibited from re-arming by Article 9 of it’s Constitution, which predates the Security Treaty. (And Article 9 doesn’t completely prohibit re-armament, it just limits defense expenditure to 1% of GDP and military activity to Japan and it’s immediate environment).

    Try educating yourself before you speak, hell, just try starting up your brain before engaging your mouth. I think you’ll need to locate the crank-handle first though as you seem to have lost it somewhere along the line.

  541. JM says:

    Sax: As for what you mean by security treaty wtf knows

    I mean this oh person of dubious ability to even surf the internet.

    You know what? If someone on a blog somewhere mentions something and you’re not sure what it is, there is this thing called “Google” that can sometimes help, and there is also this other thing called “Wiki” which is an online encyclopedia of somewhat better reliability than even the Encyclopedia Britannica – a series of books that I believe parents who cared for their children’s education were encouraged to buy in times gone past. But I guess you must have been “born down pit” and such delights were denied you.

    Either that, or you’re a time traveller from the 17th Century.

    I pity you.

    JM This comment has too may links in it, remember only two links per comment or its sent to the moderation bin : Iain

  542. JM says:

    BTW Sax, SEATO was dissolved 1977 due to lack of interest.

    Try to keep up with the news, the Rip van Winkle pose is getting boring.

  543. Sax says:

    Happy 550 Iain.

    Obviously it didn’t bother to look up the word ally a shame, it may have learned something.

    And so, now all forms of the argument are lost, the final thrashings of the loser, are always what we see above. Lose the argument, attack the person, doesn’t matter if you’re wrong, do it anyway, to get the attention away from the failed argument. Pretty embarrassing to watch really. Maybe embarrassment is the wrong word, perhaps pitiful would be more appropriate.

    As for your treaty?
    That was the normalisation of relations you fool.
    I brought that up about 400 comments ago.

    But, hang on, I thought you said Wiki was not a reliable source ?
    Man, you’re getting worse. What’s more, the more frustrated you are getting in your failed arguments, the more angrier you are getting, and the less cogent YOU you are becoming. Get a grip, a sure sign that your are losing it !

    As for your facts, you have provided none.
    I see you have attempted to also divert attention away from your sovereignty issue ? Not very successfully I might add.

    Hmm, so what’s left of JM’s argument folks ?
    Not much, but then again, there wasn’t much to begin with.
    The deal has been done, the base will be built. The Muslum fundamentals in Asia will freak out, and threaten to blow us up.
    So all in all ? Nothing will change, and life will go on, even with JM’s churlish protestations.

  544. Iain Hall says:

    This is a thread that just keeps giving Sax!!!
    JM
    Maaaate, there is a very old proverb that says when you find yourself in a deep hole then it is time to stop digging. You are clearly at risk of a stroke or some sort of cardiac problem because I can see your anger in every word of your last few comments…
    Now take a deep breath,try chanting Om for a while and you are bound to feel better, then you can try to respond to me rather than ranting at Sax…
    Photobucket

  545. Sax says:

    Perhaps a prayer to Gaia may be more appropriate ?

  546. Sax says:

    Before leaving you to bluer skies, this ?
    Article 9 in all its glory !
    ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

    And from JM folks ?

    (And Article 9 doesn’t completely prohibit re-armament, it just limits defense expenditure to 1% of GDP and military activity to Japan and it’s immediate environment).

    Funny, I don’t see the words expenditure, limit, GDP anywhere in the article at all JM ?
    What, didn’t you think I would check ? Oh, fool you !

    Further in the article, the below, that explains it better than I could.

    The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, who “wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever.”[1] Shidehara’s perspective was that retention of arms would be “meaningless” for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution

    Sh*t, give it away man, this is just becoming too easy, and too embarrassing !
    BTW, Iain’s questions still remain unanswered.

  547. Sax says:

    Have fun with it, and see ya later suckers !

  548. JM says:

    You’re hopeless Sax.

    Every time you lose a point you claim it as a victory.

  549. Sax says:

    Oh, your protestations of superiority are touching, if not misplaced and misplaced.
    Your main and only premise, just bit the dust.
    Embrace and relish your failure.
    Ka-Ching !
    You’all have a happy day now ?

  550. Sax says:

    Ears are still ringing so sorry about that, it should be
    misguided and misplaced

    I’ve been chucking a lear jet around, at everything from 5k up to 40k, for the past three hours.
    What’s your excuse JM ?

  551. JM says:

    > I’ve been chucking a lear jet around, at everything from 5k up to 40k, for the past three hours.

    Just like your doppelgangers Len, Dave and who was the other one?

    Indulge your fantasies Sax, living them is another thing. And I’m quite confident you don’t do that.

    Or would you perhaps prefer to meet Iain’s standard of verisimilitude and supply your name, address, qualifications (in triplicate) and serial number? Together perhaps with posting a scan of the photo page from your passport?

  552. Sax says:

    Oh, here we go. Again, after another failed argument, time to shift the failure to challenge identities. Not going through that again, have done that numerous times. I challenge your qualifications, than defend mine, roughnut.

    I am not the one claiming scientific qualifications, I don’t have JM ?
    Before you challenge anyone else, Iain asked days ago, to prove yours. A challenge you are still to answer. So, on those terms, all of a sudden, finding someone, experienced in the field for many years, that has the guts to challenge your accummulated bulls*hit, has really urked you ?

    Get over it !

  553. Sax says:

    BTW, you still haven’t commented re you being sprung over misquoting article 9 ?
    Going to walk that one back, or are you too embarrassed to ?

    Also, Iain knows who I am, where I am, and my qualifications, and has done, since pretty much the beginning. As for yours ? Be careful, your secret squirrell employer may put you in jail ? sic !
    What a bloody crock of c*ap !
    Who the hell do you honestly think you are fooling with your dribble ?
    Not us, that is for certain.

  554. JM says:

    Sax, you really are cognitively challenged. Beyond it actually. I’ve laid out a consistent argument and backed it up.

    You on the other hand change like the wind. Facts, viewpoints, b****** and nonsense are all just chaff to you. Equally useful. So long as you’ve got something to throw at me (or think you have) you think you’re winning. Well you’re not.

    Why don’t you just go back to the peanut gallery and start throwing you own droppings? That’d be a more coherent response than anything you’ve managed over the last few days.

  555. Sax says:

    I challenge anyone who falsifies evidence in an attempt to support a dodgy premise.

    Least I had some facts to begin with JM

    What was your excuse ? Your last protestion, and the facts that you backed your argument up with were challenged, and like the rest of your argument, and attempt to prove it, were found not only wanting, but straight out fabrication.
    What’s the matter, didn’t think anyone would check ?
    I’m no scientist, but neither or you by the looks of it.

    Your last, remaining, so called string of evidence just sh*t itself kiddo.
    Now what, resort to personal insults ?

    As I have said before, you, and Browny, and all the others like you, are exactly the reason as to why the Green movement in Australia will never have any credibility, and will never be taken seriously.
    A shame, as it is an important endevour.

    Embrace your failure !

  556. JM says:

    Sax: I challenge anyone who falsifies evidence in an attempt to support a dodgy premise.

    Excuse me??????

    Dodgy premise? Well that’s a matter of opinion.

    But “falsification” – that’s a slander Sax. You better start substantiating it.

  557. Sax says:

    Actually, if legalities were to apply, then it’s Libel you bloody dill.
    Not slander ! 😆
    It’s written, not spoken. Oh dear !

    How about these apples for substantiation.
    https://iainhall.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/bob-browns-paranoia-about-the-usa/#comment-69118
    Or more plainly put, your b/s about article 9 ?

    You are just making it up as you go along, and were caught out doing so.
    I fully quoted the said article, and none of your premise was contained within it, nor was it even loosely implied.
    So, ergo, you are just making it up as you go along, flailing about, hoping no one will notice your desperation or failure.

    Again, no wonder the Green Movement has no credibility in this country, and also shows just how desperate Dullard was to keep the top job. One BTW I will bet everything I have, if nothing seriously changes, she will never get again.

    Want to rethink your last perhaps ?

  558. JM says:

    Sax, the difference between libel and slander is a little bit moot (to use the word you should have) in this case. It boils down to the question of whether or not comments on a blog post are ‘speech’ or ‘publication’. That’s a topic I think you should take up with Iain.

    Whatever is the outcome of that “debate” – which I suggest is irrelevant – the facts are that you have not substantiated a single element of your “argument”. Whatever the hell it actually is because you have failed to state it clearly or consistently, nor been able to marshall facts in support of it.

    As to the ephemera of “1%”, I will concede that Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution does not mention it – how could I not, it is a simple matter of a text search easily accomplished in a web browser, something you appear to be capable of – however for many years it has been interpreted and implemented that way because of a fundamental contradiction in the same document – namely, how can a nation be disarmed on the one hand but be allowed a “self defence force” on the other? Without spending at least some money on military forces?

    This is a commonplace of international relations and I’m surprised you’re willing to express opinions on geo-politics without being (apparently) aware of it.

  559. Sax says:

    Maaaaaaayte !
    You don’t honestly think you are fooling anyone by your latest dribble do you ?
    Seriously. Really ?

    I used “mute”, as your argument was silenced, the same way you mute your telly, when you don’t want to hear it. That is what happened to your agument, or lack of it.

    Whatever is the outcome of that “debate” – which I suggest is irrelevant (then why tf did you bring it up ?) – the facts are that you have not substantiated a single element of your “argument”. Whatever the hell it actually is because you have failed to state it clearly or consistently, nor been able to marshall facts in support of it.

    What the bloody hell is this in Queens English ffs ?
    Again, in an attempt to switch horses, save face, you change tack, incorrectly I might add.
    I gave you, directly, the difference between libel and slander. For your benefit, I gave you the definitions, in as simple terms as I could, and still be accurate. A first year bloody law student knows the difference between the two. If you doubt the veracity ffs, look it up yourself, and then come back, and perhaps walk back your dribble.
    Changing the terms, in an attempt to disguise your incorrect premise, (because again, you are WRONG) won’t cut it, not on these pages !
    Do you take us all for total fools ?

    Perhaps YOU should take it up with Iain. I am certainly he would tell you exactly what I have said is accurate. Walk it back please, because whatever way you phrase it, you have the concept ass about, like everything else you have written here.

    I don’t know what you googled, but it wasn’t section 9. 😆

    Before criticising anyone elses research skills, I suggest you learn some yourself.
    Everything we have done to shoot down your dribble, has been substantiated with direct linkage.

    namely, how can a nation be disarmed on the one hand but be allowed a “self defence force” on the other? Without spending at least some money on military forces?

    Under UN charter, as well as the link provided above, Japan is only allowed minimum forces deemed necessary, to provide defence capabilities. Not enough to be considered, or could be considered, as possibly being offensive rather than only defensive , as per the surrender obligations after ww2. Anything more major than a simple reserve type of force, has to be provided by the US, (or now the UN or NATO). they are simply not allowed to do so. minimalist defence force only.

    I am so confused with the remainder of your last, as you are all over the place, I will leave this here.

    I am also surprised, that you are willing to go headlong into an argument, criticise everyone elses arguments, without doing at least a minimum of research and accuracy.

  560. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    As some one who has been around the internet traps a time or two I feel that I should appraise you of a very simple truth, namely it is impossible , in law, to slander you or have anything that I or anyone else may say here about cited as a Libel, do you want to know why that is the case???

    Well do your research, but if your research is up to your usual standard and you have not worked it out by morning then I will explain it to you then.

  561. Sax says:

    Plus Iain, the biggy ?

    How the hell, do you sue, or be sued by a pseudonym ?
    The old bait and switch, to disguise another failed argument.

    No wonder BB and his band of merry greeny men have no credibility ?
    Not hard to see why is it ?

  562. Sax says:

    Sorry, but experiencing JM’s “research skills” he’ll probably come up with the reverse ?

  563. JM says:

    Sax, I think it be best if you just kept quiet at this point.

    Regards

  564. Sax says:

    I think you have that backwards JM
    Every argument you have presented, along with every cheap shot has, like the remainder of your argument, been made moot and mute !
    What else you got ?
    I think it is time you, like your mate Greeny, just faded into the mediocrity of recent history.

    Your shooting blanks sunshine !

  565. JM says:

    Sax, ‘moot’ does not mean what you think it does.

  566. Sax says:

    😕
    Please do yourself a favour and look it up will you ?

  567. Sax says:

    I use a very simple version of firefox here JM nothing of any sophistication. This computer is a stand alone desktop, connected to the internet 24/7 for unwork related minutia, completely away from the work mainframe, that is satellite linked.

    All I did was google “section 9” and up came the definition, about 3rd from the top. You want to try it, hell, it’s not so hard.

    namely, how can a nation be disarmed on the one hand but be allowed a “self defence force” on the other? Without spending at least some money on military forces?

    As for the japanese military situation ?
    I explained that above as well. But, for you, and I loathe having to be condascending, BUT !

    The new government, after ww2, decided, that it did not want its people again, to fixate on war. It thought, that if it had a proper military, that fixation and those aspiriations that caused it so much grief after ww2, may arise again. (btw all this is in the same article I linked too earlier). That is why, it decided, to have nothing more than what could be considered ‘basic’ defence capabilties. Under the auspices of the US as well as the UN, and even under pressure from China’s blowhards of the 50’s and 60’s onwards, that has remained the case. Also, the reason, as to why there are still all those US bases in Japan.

  568. JM says:

    Sax, you are completely deluded. The post-WWII Constitution was imposed on Japan by the victorious powers. It was not “decided” by the government (or rather the Imperial power that is actually still in place and was not overturned by the MacArthur post-war occupation)

    You are clearly an i****

    My question to you was simple:- do you believe Australia should be treated in the same manner by the US as a comprehensively defeated enemy?

    Yes or no?

  569. Sax says:

    Although the Japanese constitution says “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained, ” the Jieitai (自衛隊), or Japan Self-Defense Forces were created shortly after the end of U.S. occupation. The Jieitai is one of the most technologically advanced armed forces in the world and Japanese military expenditures are the seventh highest in the world. Though the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, signed in 1960, allows for the continued presence of American military bases in Japan, most of them on Okinawa, no formal agreement was ever set by which Japan officially relies on the United States, United Nations, or anybody else for its defense.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Japan

    and further in the same article ?

    In the aftermath of the Occupation, attempts were made by some administrations in Japan, particularly at the urging of the United States, to amend the Constitution and rearm. This was prevented by intense popular sentiment against this action, and against war in general, along with the attitudes and agendas of significant elements within the government.

    As for your question, that has been answered as well.

    Obviously, you cannot fathom the prinicple of being an ally and what that entails.
    Please look it up, and your question will be answered.

    But, as you are a lazy researcher, in a word, as you obviously can’t concentrate much further than that, to answer your question (again) no.

    Where you got Australia as a defeated power just shows your general lack of knowledge, history, and simple arrogance and more importantly ignorance !
    That should be enough to get you started, sigh !

  570. GD says:

    One US base in Darwin and we’re being treated like ‘a comprehensively defeated enemy’? FFS, get a grip!

  571. Sax says:

    Your protestations regarding poor little Japan are touching really. Real kleenex stuff.

    Again, you forget the damage Japan did during ww2 ?
    They got their butts kicked, and what happened regarding their military, after it was all over, was not only the US’s decision, but that of the Japanese people themselves.

    You can’t seem to fathom, or understand the principle that Japan lost the war, and there are/were ramifications of that. The same perhaps, to some degree, as what is now happening in Iraq and Afghanastan ?

    Japan has flourished since ww2 even with the US bases, not even you can deny that ?
    There have been no attacks against the bases, or Japan in general since.
    Starting to get the drift of it yet ?
    Obviously peace, utilising the “big stick” approach is a concept you cannot fathom.
    Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t. It has worked in Japan.
    It will work here as well. There will always be nongs such as yourself, that will shout loudly that the world is coming to an end, but you will ignored in the long run, and common sense, even though sometimes slow to take hold, will win out in the end.
    Regardless of your protestations.

  572. Richard Ryan says:

    Imagine what a feat the bringing down of the twin towers, the symbol of American capitalism , planned and executed for less then a million dollars, surly an inside job, and most of them, from Saudi Arabia. Truly a well planned attack on a super power. Watch for more similar attacks on American soil, as the shampoo add. tells us, it won’t happen overnight, but it will happen.

  573. Sax says:

    Wow, theres someone who wants to spend the rest of their lives in Guantum ?
    Certainly explains the reason as to why this base should go ahead, and will.
    Shalom Dick !

  574. JM says:

    Sax, your quoting from Wikipedia is “imaginative” but the article is wrong. The Security Treat of 1952 does provide for the defence of Japan as does the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation of 1960. Explicitely, unlike ANZUS.

    But apparently, even you deluded as you are, can only see “implications” in ANZUS and hang it on everyone else who

    a.) isn’t as “farsighted” as you,
    b.) places more store in clear and explicit statements than fairy dust.

    Stick with the fairy dust mate. If it makes you happy.

  575. Sax says:

    Speaking of bloody fairy dust JM
    At least it was a sourced quote, what’s your excuse ?
    You criticise a checkable source, with what the bloody force ?
    Put up, or shut tf up.
    Really, this is getting pretty tiresome. Your getting worse. Stop being such a lazy researcher.

    The treaty had nothing to do with us. It was with the americans, as was the surrender you dill.
    The japs surrendered to Macarthur not bloody John Curtin ffs ?

    You, yourself, only recently, that ANZUS was dead ? Which is it ?

    How else do you explain the lack of japanese military. At least other than token forces ?
    Got a quote for that ? Would love to see it ?

    If you bothered to read your quote, a few lines down, perhaps you would see, that further to the treaty, (which was signed btw some 15 bloody years after the surrender ! ) you will note, that japanese were still not allowed to form any defensive force that had the capabiltity of being able to physically leave japanese soil !

    Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration.
    It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9). In particular, the constitution forbids the maintenance of “land, sea, and air forces.” It also expresses the Japanese people’s renunciation of “the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes”.

    Oh dear, there is that pesky Article 9 again !

    Don’t need to say any more I think.
    That lot should have just rocked your world again.
    Back to the ol drawing board for you…
    Going to walk that back, or are you going to continue to look the goose !
    😆

  576. JM says:

    Sax, I quoted from this treaty earlier. It’s nice of you to give a link, but you’re capacity with a web browser does not win you the argument.

    Let me quote from the Security Treaty (like I did earlier):

    Such forces may be utilized to contribute to … the security of Japan against armed attack

    Got it? Security of Japan. From armed attack. The US is undertaking to protect Japan.

    Is there language like that in ANZUS?

    No.

    Facts, Sax outweigh b*******

  577. JM says:

    Oh, and Sax. I brought up Article 9, not you. You claimed that it was the Security Treaty that prevents Japan from maintaining large scale military forces, and that was a Treaty you previously claimed didn’t exist.

    There is a repeating pattern here:-

    * Sax makes stupid claim
    * JM disproves stupid claim citing evidence
    * Sax claims JM’s evidence proves his stupid claim and pretends he never made earlier assertions
    * JM again comes up with the goods
    * Sax deludes himself and thinks he got away with his stupidity
    * anyone with a brain wonders if Sax even has one.

    You’re either manifestly dishonest or an i*****. Personally, I’ll go with both.

  578. Sax says:

    Lets deal with this latest dribble one step at a time.
    Again, learn how to do a web search will you ffs !

    You brought it up sure, but you misquoted article 9, actually your interpretation (or whatever the f it was), was no where near accurate, hence why I went looking for it, to reproduce here. Just to show everybody how lazy a researcher you were, and to what limits you would go, to substantiate a b/s premise.

    Is there language like that in ANZUS?

    You said yourself, that ANZUS was dead ? So, your point now becomes how is Australia is protected ? How do you explain the actions in south east Asia during the fifties and sixties then. For the fun of it ? Again, ever heard of the Domino Theory perhaps ? Could that have been the reason as to why the yanks got involved in the region ?

    Facts, Sax outweigh b*******
    Finally, you are beginning to get it perhaps. Pity you haven’t produced any yourself. Man, is that the pot calling the kettle black.

    Again with the personal shots, when its argument is shot down.
    I am not the one wearing the credibiltiy belt around its ankles JM Thats your department. Everything I have used has been found, then a link provided, just so as drones such as yourself, didn’t go into a coma, worrying about how to find it. You are still YET to provide any direct evidence to substantiate your claims, or even more basic, discredit mine. You can tell that simply really. It is in the tone of your message. It is getting more frustrated, more angry, and more condascending. The people who read these pages, at least those with half a brain, see right through you JM and your failed arguments.

    I suggest you get into your little primitive search engine, and god knows you obviously need the bloody practice, look up the word precedent . Once you have done that, take heed of the definition. Then maybe you will understand that nearly every law or treaty in the UN & NATO block, as well as its supporters, has come from previous treaties, later redrafted, refined and reframed to suit a certain situation.

    As to your second foray.
    I suggest that is a good piece of self analysis, for you to consider perhaps ? Should try taking some of your own advice.
    I have nothing to be embarrassed about. At every turn in this argument, I have kicked your a*se, and that is why you are writing angrier and angrier, and losing whatever logic you had.
    You have/had no facts so have resorted to whacked out academics, and emotive rhetoric in an attempt to switch the argument away from the fact that you had no evidence.

    It didn’t work you tool. You were caught out.

    * Sax makes stupid claim and backs it up with backable links. Jm just makes it up as he goes along.
    * JM disproves stupid claim citing evidence Still yet to see it. You couldn’t even find section 9 ffs. 😆
    * Sax claims JM’s evidence proves his stupid claim and pretends he never made earlier assertions Again, linked to your earlier psychotic episode, which you then immediately attempted to walk back. Nice try you tool. Errrrr wrong !
    * JM again comes up with the goods Like those old late night ads. Shonky Inc lives folks, just see above. Goods are faulty as hell.
    * Sax deludes himself and thinks he got away with his stupidity Certainly was smart enough to catch you out dunder head.
    * anyone with a brain wonders if Sax even has one. See above. Every piece of c*ap you wrote above I shot down, so can’t be doing all that bad. Ever heard of that wonderful old expression of those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones ?

    As for your last comment. Coming from a person threatening to sue for slander earlier, that is a bit rich. Time to grow up you angry little troll, and join us in the real world.

  579. Sax says:

    BTW forgot to acknowledge Iain, as well as the other contributers (apart from the bleaches and RR), for shooting you down as well.
    What’s it like, out on that ledge, all on your own !
    Don’t you jump now, it’s not that bad.
    😦

  580. Richard Ryan says:

    AMERICA’S great and loyal friend, John Howard never made it as person of the year on Time Magazine—–what a shame. Hitler was , and Stalin won it twice, even that war-monger Bush got there as person of the year. I heard from a good source also he never got the job at the ICC, because Howard was going to put all cricketers on ” Work Choice Contracts”. if he became vice president. Silly old me thought he was to front up to the ICC,————————- International Crimes Commission, to answer for war crimes. For the record I think he should be led to the gallows, for his war crimes along with Bush and Blair, oh please, oh please, can I pull the lever. Shalom.

  581. Richard Ryan says:

    OH YES! Howard was a complete failure—–the shonky American puppet of Australian politics. Even lost his own seat to a former ABC journalist, only the second leader in Australian history to do so, who in turn lost her seat to a tennis player. Shalom.

  582. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, this’ll get your ginger up (and help you keep the obsessive comments going) but, while I don’t agree with his views on the proposed US base in Darwin, I tend to agree with JM’s most recent summary of this never-ending stoush he’s having with you, namely:

    There is a repeating pattern here:-

    * Sax makes stupid claim
    * JM disproves stupid claim citing evidence
    * Sax claims JM’s evidence proves his stupid claim and pretends he never made earlier assertions
    * JM again comes up with the goods
    * Sax deludes himself and thinks he got away with his stupidity
    * anyone with a brain wonders if Sax even has one.

    I’ve been down that same path with you many times myself.

  583. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    thanks for helping push this thread closer to a new record, even though I think that you are wrong in the way that you have characterised the argument on this thread I think that your summary misses out on one important factor and that is the way that JM has resorted to abuse once his arguments have been demolished. As we both know the old adage says that the first one to lose their temper in debate has lost the argument…

  584. Sax says:

    Geez Ray, that would have to be the longest ever comment, ever seen from you ?
    What happened, go and buy yourself a ghost writer in your absense ?

    If it hadn’t been for the hit, and again miss, dose of sarcasm would have sworn it was someone else. 300 comments later, and that is all you have come up with ?
    Oh s*hit, I may never recover.

    I’ve been down that same path with you many times myself.

    And lost every bloody time Ray ! 😆
    Choke on them apples Sheldon.
    Every time you say something so whacked out, it needs challenging. Which for you Ray, is most of the time. That is why every thread, no matter what the subject is, after you have swooped in claiming superiority over every one else, and get your ass kicked with plain old common sense, you skulk off like a sulking child, like you did above.

    Like JM you need a reality check. But hey, each to his own. At least until they start fabricating evidence, which is what jm did above. He got caught out. So, that is what you are allying yourself with ? Certainly makes any political comment you make from now on, or ever will make pretty irrelevent. You think fabrication of evidence to prove an incorrect premise is ok do you Ray ?

    Brave words. Sort of describes your character though.
    You’all have a happy day now ?
    😉

  585. Sax says:

    Watch the fairy princess from Bright put that one in the moderation bin folks.

  586. Ray Dixon says:

    Get over yourself, Sax.

  587. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I think you’ll find JM’s “abuse” came after a long series of personal insults made by “Sax” (*). That’s his usual style of arguing and, in the end, all you can do is call him for the idiot he is, as JM has done.

    (* Not that I could be bothered scrolling back to check – no doubt “Sax” will – but that’s as I recall the course of this thread, i.e. it’s always “Sax” who gets personal and/or insulting first. Always. I’m not complaining, mind you, just pointing put the obvious)

  588. Sax says:

    JM’s abuse started, when he got caught out making up evidence to support his theories.

    Ray Dixon’s abuse started, when he was chastised for trying to reduce the argument, to a point that three year olds could understand. Pity he still couldn’t though ?
    You are complaining Ray, you are always complaining, when we all don’t bow at your feet.
    I am not the one who needs to get over themselves here. Look in the mirror for that one.

    If you want to join the argument, spend some time learning about the subject, feel free, if not, again, what the hell are you even doing here in the first place ? I come here in an attempt to improve my skills, and learn something new, what’s your intention ? Self absorbtion and self gratification ?

    Again, in a complex argument, such as this one has been, your classic sarcastic three line rebuttal won’t wash. Is that your beef ? Did you get your dander up, cos you were ignored ?

    Want to be careful of that horse you’re riding Ray.
    the poor bastard will drown you have changed saddles that often ?

  589. Ray Dixon says:

    Wow! You’re right about one thing, Sax – no one can match your, um, logic and, er, arguing & debating skills. So impressive. Sorry to butt in on your record-breaking comment spree but, hey, look on the bright side, you get to make another earth shattering and brilliant response. I can hardly wait.

  590. Sax says:

    :mrgreen:
    Careful Ray, that green streak of envy on your back is flaring again.
    And, as usual your attempt at sarcasm is so far off course, it needs a bloody road map, a compass, as well as half a dozen boy scouts to find where it belongs.

    It must really p*ss you off to see Iain get 600 odd comments on one story ? A real sad case of sour grapes there sunshine.

  591. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, I’m an author and contributor to this blog – by invitation and by choice. It does not “piss me off” to see a lot of comments made here. You really are a strange person.

  592. Sax says:

    Congrats on the 600 Iain.
    Nice accomplishment
    😎

  593. Richard Ryan says:

    ” Congrats on the 600 Iain” Is that a cash-for-comment? or is it just a bit of suck-holing, it sounds like both.

  594. Sax says:

    Its called “goodwill” Dick,
    obviously a concept you are not familiar with ?

  595. Richard Ryan says:

    Pity you don’t show a bit of “goodwill” to JM——too long in the air in those war-machines of death I guess—the Flying Pink Baron of Australia–arf-arf. Yes Iain-No Iain, what ever you say Iain,—the world is flat Iain, give us a break. Even Ray is starting to see through you—FFS give us a break. OH Iain, oh Iain 603 comments NOW—-FFS.

  596. Sax says:

    What are you now JM’s new press secretary Dick ?

    Respect is earned, not bestowed.

    Another who is sounding angry, confused, and lacking direction.
    I suggest you re read your last, and perhaps rephrase, cos apart from your anger, it is difficult to see wtf you are on about.
    Of course other than anger and contempt, neither of which will win you too many friends here I don’t think.
    Get a grip man, you’re losing it. Just like your mate.

  597. Richard Ryan says:

    wtf are you? The “Goodwill” Ambassador for America.

  598. Sax says:

    No, but I wouldn’t mind attempting to get your hatred away from the US for five minutes, and perhaps act as a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN ?
    Only seems fair, as they pay my bills most of the time.

    Right there, is the same mistake, you two have been making throughout this entire thread.

    IT IS NOT JUST THE USA MAKING THESE DECISIONS !

    Every action taken by the US over the last ‘n’ years, has developed from a United Nations vote or edict. The only two exceptions, were probably Hussein and Bin Laden, which were later sanctioned by the UN anyway. The reason for that, was that the UN was just too bloody slow, and the deemed risk could not be taken, for further collateral damage by those two clowns. Everything was fully UN sanctioned.

    I could be wrong, so there’s your shot guys, prove me wrong ?

    So, following those lines, who has the only really fully mobile, or portable military, on the planet ?
    Would that be the US by any chance ?
    Would that also be the reason, as to why the US has been the only real power involved in these actions, as they can get a force anywhere on the planet, quickly and quietly, when it does hit the fan ?

    Have a think about that for five minutes, and perhaps get back to us ?

  599. Richard Ryan says:

    The American Gospel according to Sax—–The Goodwill Ambassador for America—–left-right-left-right—wtf are we.

  600. Richard Ryan says:

    All the menial jobs in America done by the Mexicans. Cheap labour—Mexico so poor, so far from God,so close to the USA.

  601. Sax says:

    wtf are we

    Hell, who knows. But you do remind me of the throng of loud mouthed, thong wearing dopeheads, that threw rocks at our poor Vietnam conscripts, when they finally did make it home ?

    How long did it take for those poor bast*rds to get a fair shake, and be accepted home ? Some thirty odd years ? All cos of the likes of di*kheads such as yourself. Peaceknicks, who, at the first sign of a paper cut, head for the safety of under the bed ?

    I am off, have work to do for a few hours. So, will be back later, to see what other hatred, and anger you can vent, and aim towards the US.

  602. JM says:

    Sax, re. returning Vietnam veterans. It’s largely a myth, and it’s based on two incidents:

    1. A young woman, unassociated with the peace movement, acting alone and later found to be slightly mentally unstable, chucked a quantity of red paint at the officer leading ….. wait for it ….. a friggin’ welcome home march well attended by ordinary citizens A welcome home march Sax, something that many people forget was common and often deny happened at all even though there are many file pictures from the newspapers of the time.

    2. A phone call made to the family of a recently killed serviceman who were told that he “got what he deserved”

    Both of these incidents are reported in virtually every book on the Australian experience of the Vietnam war, yet they are rare examples. They just get repeated in virtually every book you read.

    Another reason, justified, for the veterans feeling of abandonment is that the RSL – yes the RSL – refused many of them membership and for many years denegrated their service. The RSL, not the peace movement and not the general populace.

    They also had legitimate gripes about the Agent Orange thing and problems getting many of their medical conditions, often related to stress trauma, recognized.

    But the assertion that the “hippies threw rocks/spat/whatever” at returning soldiers, is a myth.

  603. Sax says:

    As usual JM, there is no source attached to your story.
    How about this one, to prove your above moot/mute

    Calling it a myth is not only cruel, but without foundation, and plain old bloody wrong !
    Below is a direct quote from one of the organisations responsible for Vets, and their attempts to return to mainstream civilian life, after Vietnam.

    If we were to choose one overriding contributing factor to PTSD, it might well be the homecoming.

    Never before has this country so effectively turned its back on her returning soldiers. An angry and frustrated American populace left no welcome mat on its floors for the returning Vietnam veteran.

    As opposed to his World War II father who received cheers, tumultuous welcomes and ticker tape parades, the Vietnam veteran arrived home alone amid continuing antiwar protests.

    He was frequently spat upon or was the recipient of such epithets as “baby killer”.
    There was little or no debriefing by the Veterans Administration. When he went to the VA for help, he was often misdiagnosed and chemically restrained. In the face of such adversity, the veteran was left on his own to try to retrieve what was left of his shattered life. He was not the same boy who had left home to fight for his country. He was confused and soon became enraged. He had done his duty, lost buddies, lost his own sense of self in the insanity of the war and was rejected at home. Many veterans still express a desire to be back in Vietnam; “At least there I know I was good at my job, did my duty, and knew who I was. I was accepted. I may have come back, but I never came home.”
    http://www.vetsoutreach.com/ptsd-history.html

    Your above not only disrespects the Vietnam vets, but also any vet that has been sent to war. Don’t insult our intelligence, and most of all, don’t insult them.

  604. Sax says:

    BTW, the above appeared about third from the top of a google search.
    Geez man, I do wish you would learn how to forumulate a boolean search

  605. Richard Ryan says:

    Al Capone: War is a racket.

  606. Sax says:

    So, where’s that apology to all the Vietnam vets Dick !
    Better make it a bloody good one !

  607. Richard Ryan says:

    The American War in Vietnam, was a war based on lies, as was the Iraqi war also. As Cicero said way back in (106-43BC) Laws are silent in war. Was there in Vietnam September 11 2001, unaware of the unfolding drama in America, when the bleeding-heart tourists informed me, to tell the truth, I did not care one way or another, it did not concern me, but it did concern me of the war crimes committed by the Americans Invaders, and still today are most hated by the older generation, if you had your grass hut burnt down, you would not be happy, The Americans were defeated, and humbled there. When some years later, this old Yank, wondered out loud to me how did we get defeated here, I replied, why not, you lot were fighting in there back-yard. Some Europeans fought with the Viet-Cong, during that period, some Dutch, and Jane Fonda was a big supporter of the Viet-Cong….Hanoi Jane. Today Vietnam is a popular tourist spot with the young Aussies, and other nations. I like the Vietnamese quotation, ” close the door to the past, and open the door to the future” Shalom

  608. Richard Ryan says:

    Sax the Flying Pink Baron: No Apology—I did not start the American War in Vietnam—– you war monger. You remind me of a dag stuck on a sheep’s crutch, the way you latch up to American war machine. Now I’m off to refresh my Karl Marx quotations. Shalom.

  609. Richard Ryan says:

    WTF! Sax! you are not keeping your mind on the job, 617 comments now.

  610. Sax says:

    Again Dick changes the subject when confronted with facts, in a vain attempt, that no one notices ?

    Wonder what else he will come up with ?

    You were the one who said our vets weren’t disrespected on their return.
    God, you are an absolute f*wit. Going to walk that back, or are you going to make more of a fool of yourself ? :lol>

    So, folks, he changes the subject again, hoping all the while, no one notices.
    Don’t need to say any more here. My job’s done.
    Relish your ignorance Dick !

    Still waiting for that apology to all the Vietnam vets that you slagged off at you troll.
    Haven’t even got the guts to do that ?
    Sort of explains your entire argument here though.

  611. Richard Ryan says:

    MOST of the Vietnam vets are dead now—-Agent Orange—-Drugs——-Booze—-Suicide——-and much more—–now get back to your war-games—and the government can get rooted, Shalom. PS. Go and have a

  612. Sax says:

    Also waiting for yours too JM.
    Funny how you both appear at the same time, saying roughly the same thing ?
    But, hey, who cares, your arguments are so easy to shoot down, who cares about identities.
    My job here is done.
    Both of your arguments have been systematically discredited, as well as your good selves.
    Relish in your failures.
    Again, no wonder the Green movement can’t gather enough support from mainstream populations, to lick a postage stamp.
    Above is your reason why ?

  613. Richard Ryan says:

    F#### THIS KEY-BOARD, it’s freezing on me—-PS. Go and have a lie down Sax, you are suffering war games stress.

  614. Richard Ryan says:

    AS for the Vietnam Vets I know, I’m surprised some have not bumped off a few Aussie politicians.

  615. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, there’s just one little problem with your link and quote about how our AUSSIE returning Vietnam vets were treated … it’s about American soldiers (not Aussies).

    Do try harder. In the meantime, I tend to agree with JM that, generally speaking, Australian Vietnam Vets were not “spat on” by hippies or protesters and that the worst treatment they received was from (a) the RSL (b) the Government. That’d be a Liberal government, btw.

  616. Sax says:

    And there is ol Ray D.
    Swoops in, and picks gnits, the wrong ones btw.

    Who did Australia serve with Ray, over there Ray, the bloody Eskimos perhaps ?
    So, you think the yanks the only ones to suffer PTSD due to Vietnam ?
    I think not, and I also think you know that as well.

    Also, I think you need to look up your dates Ray.
    Labor was in power.
    The fall of Saigon was in April of 75. That should ring a bell with you labor fans ?
    The sacking of Whitlam and his government was on November 11 of the same year.

    I know you are only agreeing with JM to s*itstir me up, and who cares. 😆
    You’re going to be the one, along with JM, as well as his mate Dick, that are going to look like the gooses here.

    For people who describe themselves as supposedly intelligent, you guys are really lowering the bar here. This is basic google territory here. A five year old could confirm it.
    Hang on……

  617. JM says:

    Sax, my references are two fold

    (i) examples of books that highlight the two Australian incidents that feature in most accounts:-

    * Paul Ham’s recent “Vietnam -the Australian War” (not a bad book and quite good in the early chapters, but not a great one)

    * Gerard Windsor’s “All Day Long the Noise of Battle” (from last year). He recounts both incidents but also makes the point they were not representative of Australian sentiment even among the anti-war protestors

    (ii) a more scholarly account appears by Jeffrey Grey in “Zombie Myths of Australian Military History (2010)”. Dr. Grey is the author of about 26 books on military history, has taught in Australia and in the US and is on the editorial board of a number of history journals. Dr. Grey says

    All these views [the various myths surrounding treatment of returning veterans] are inaccurate to a greater or lesser extent

    He goes on to describe the two incidents I referred to, as some of the very few that can actually be sourced apart from the anecdotes of individuals receiving occasional hostile or ignorant treatment. He says that it is impossible to say how widespread [this was] but states pretty clearly that mistreatment was not common outside the disgraceful attitude displayed by many RSL members and branches at the time – many of whom felt that Vietnam “wasn’t a real war, unlike WWII or Korea” – and the government’s refusal to take veterans health issues seriously.

  618. Sax says:

    Before shitting this down for the night, I will ask you one question, and one question for you to ponder. That goes for anyone else as well. All can play.

    Get out from behind your computer, and go to the nearest RSL and just ask one question, to any Vietnam Vet.
    Ask them how they were treated when they returned.
    If you came back with an honest answer, I bet they would all say the same.
    Poorly !

    But I think you guys already know that.

    You are correct in your last para though.

    many of whom felt that Vietnam “wasn’t a real war, unlike WWII or Korea” – and the government’s refusal to take veterans health issues seriously.

    That was the problem I was pointing towards. It was not only the government, but also the public, (after being swamped with a couple of years, of anti Vietnam propaganda from the media and latte set), as well as RSL that was leading the charge against the vets. Funny how, when all of a sudden, after the WW2 vets starting dying off, the RSL changed their minds, and opened their doors to the Vietnam guys and gals ? If it had of been me, I would have told them to take a hike. Even after my service, I refuse to join the RSL on principle.

  619. JM says:

    Sax I think it’s you who needs the history lesson not Ray.

    Australian troops were pulled out of Vietnam during 1971/72 by the MacMahon government – that would be a Coalition government, not the Whitlam government. The Whitlam government abolished conscription and pardoned conscientious objectors shortly after taking office.

    So the period during which veterans were actually returning from Vietnam occurred solely during the time of the late and post Menzies governments. And most of the trouble they had regarding benefits, recognition of health problems, Agent Orange etc occurred during the Fraser government. Things were largely rectified during the period of the Hawke and Keating governments.

    There were no Australian troops in Vietnam in 1975 (apart from a couple of liason officers I believe who were working with the CIA), and there were very, very few US troops.

  620. JM says:

    I see Sax is up to the third step of his s******* cycle:

    Sax claims JM’s evidence proves his stupid claim and pretends he never made earlier assertions

  621. Sax says:

    Oh bugger, sorry about the first word. A typo really, although a pi**er of a typo.
    😦

  622. Sax says:

    I see JM is again making it up as he goes along, hoping everyone is as tired as I am, and couldn’t be stuffed taking any notice.
    Well, almost right. But again your sources are missing JM along with your facts ?

    FFS JM, instead of embarrassing yourself further, bloody google it will you ?
    would save future embarrassment.
    G’night all, sweet dreams to all the thong brigade.

  623. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, quoting American repercussions DOES NOT verify that the same happened here. As for the the date of the end of the war in mid 1975, for God’s sake, Sax, the mistreatment of returning Vietnam vets was played out over many years, mostly the late 70s to early 80s – i.e. under the Fraser Liberal govt. You really are crumbling now, aren’t you? What’s your friggin’ point?

  624. Sax says:

    Last one, try reading this, and get back to me.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

  625. Sax says:

    Geez Ray, before you pass out from foaming at the mouth, take a pill and relax.
    Labour was in power between 72 and 75 remember ?

    the Australian case was not as publicly reported as was the yanks. The government, as they were in charge of vet affairs in Oz, kept it all hush hush. That was the reason why the vets were so badly treated when they got back, and why it took so long to not only get their recognition, but also their well earned benefits. Also, partially the reason why they finally went public about it. Remember the ramblings from such people such as Normie Rowe for example ? Ring any bells ? Remember the dust up he had with that dickhead Ron Casey, on the Midday show in 91? Thats how long this has been going on.

    PWSD is also something that apparently takes a few years to show itself. But again, I think you know that already, and you are just stirring the pot.
    Anyway, this time I’m out here. I am certain you will dream up other b/s for me to knock on the head, but it can wait.

  626. JM says:

    Sax: I see JM is again making it up as he goes along,

    It would be great if you could specify how.

    But again your sources are missing JM

    I quoted 3 books, all recently published and ones I’ve read in the last few months and which remain on my bookshelves. They are still available at bookstores – try Dymocks or the airport (a place you claim to frequent)

  627. JM says:

    Sax: The government, as they were in charge of vet affairs in Oz, kept it all hush hush

    Your point being? Veterans Administration – who you referenced earlier – are a US government instrumentality. So why didn’t they keep it “hush hush”?

    And can I remind you that the US treatment of Iraq veterans is as equally questioned in the US today as their treatment of Vietnam veterans was.

    As for the recognition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD, not PWSD) in veterans, that has long been poorly recognized (viz. “shell shock” after WWI). And yes it does often evolve over years.

    As for the Casey and Rowe fight, as I recall that was about the Republic with Rowe taking the monarchist side. I also recall that Rowe provoked it by crossing the floor and confronting a seated Casey, who was (admittedly in an obnoxious manner) making the quite reasonable point that Rowe could not expect to have his view prevail and be allowed to discount entirely the views of people he disagreed with solely because they hadn’t “fought for this country”.

    I’ve no idea what that incident is supposed to have to do with this debate but I will observe that calling a fellow citizen a traitor for simply expressing a contrary opinion – as Rowe did – is a pretty low tactic.

    Bear in mind I’m not supporting Casey hitting Rowe, any more than I support Rowe’s immediately preceding shoving of Casey back into his chair.

    Grow up Sax.

  628. Sax says:

    Grow up yourself.
    My point being ? Try accessing any Australian figures, and see what happens. See how many open doors you get.

    I have shot down nearly every one of your arguments JM, and watched as you then changed tack, in an attempt to save face. Your original argument, which is the theme of the thread, was shot to hell, and you have been trying to change the subject ever since.

    I leave you with a link, from a Australian government website, and not your b/sheet supposed books, which don’t happen to be on my bookshelf. So, read the link, it pretty much confirms all that I have been saying, and its there for all and sundry here, to read as well.

    http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/aftermath/veterans.php

    Sundays are always family days around here so I won’t be around. As next Sunday is xmas, the ladies are preparing something special. So, knock yourself out. I am certain you can fabricate some more death defying evidence for the rest of the gang to ponder, in my absense ?

    Regardless of your proven lack of research skills, and your whining to the contrary, the base will be built. Aussie servicemen and women will continue to serve alongside their US allies, and will do so long into the future, and hey, life will go on.
    Better get used to the idea, cos it’s a done deal.
    You’all have a happy day now ?

  629. Sax says:

    Don’t forget it is an Australian government website, so the information will be slanted to protect their side of it.
    An interesting read, and only one page, none the less.
    I am pretty certain, you will come up with a couple of uncheckable sources to discredit it, but that’s your m.o. isn’t it ?
    We have a great day planned around here, so you sit in front of your computer for it, and knock yourself out.
    My job here is done.
    😉

  630. Richard Ryan says:

    “My job here is done” Thank f###### for that, have not heard such war-garble for years, now go back to watching your favourite movie—Full Metal Jacket.

  631. JM says:

    Sax, you’re full of it.

    Let me quote the first paragraph of your reference.

    Anecdotal evidence holds that most men returned from Vietnam in the dead of night, hidden from the public. In fact, large numbers actually returned on HMAS Sydney, to a welcome by dignitaries and a parade.

    No spitting, no stone throwing there then.

    And a bit later on.

    Even the RSL proved less than welcoming. Remarks by returned soldiers from earlier conflicts suggesting that Vietnam was not a real war hurt men seeking the comradeship and understanding of fellow veterans. This experience was not universal – rural RSL clubs in particular did welcome men returned from Vietnam – but it happened often enough for some veterans to harbour a life-long resentment of an organisation from which they expected much more.

    Pretty much exactly as I said and the opposite of your original standpoint. If there is any ducking and weaving going on here, it’s by “Sax”

  632. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes Sax, your “job” (to create a record comment count by whatever means it takes) is well and truly “done”.

    And then some.

    Amen.

    Merry Xmas.

  633. Sax says:

    Heard the fax and look what I see ?

    The three stooges, as if right on cue ? swoop in, and deposit their excrement, like a police dog, that has been taught to c*ap on command ?

    We need to say sorry to the Vietnam veterans who were spat on by left-wing protestors on their return to Australia after their tour of duty.

    We need to say sorry to our servicemen and women in Afghanistan over the fact that the New South Wales Labor Government refused to allow a motion of support for them in this Parliament.

    Until these apologies for past betrayals are forthcoming, I ask that politicians from the Left refrain from making meaningless Anzac and Remembrance Day speeches, desist from placing condolence motions on the Notice Paper and stay away from military funerals.
    http://www.charlielynn.com.au/2010/10/time-to-say-sorry-to-our-war-veterans/

    And further perhaps, before the two link rule gets me ?

    Four decades since Australia’s Vietnam veterans were denied a welcome home parade – and even spat on for their services to their country – the soldiers of D Company, who attended Brisbane’s Long Tan Day service this morning, were each able to wear the emblem of the Palm Unit Citation.
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/vietnam-vets-recall-the-gore-of-long-tan/2008/08/18/1218911527327.html

    That should be enough to get you three stooges started.

    This is going to be a great day for us around here folks, and Ray, not even your typical sour disposition, or sour grapes is going to spoil it.

    Later….

  634. Sax says:

    C’mon you tools, this stuff is so easy to find.
    You three clowns have become a joke.

  635. Richard Ryan says:

    OH Iain, OH Iain, our comments are starting to climb again says Sax, ain’t I good. FFS I thought your job was done here.

  636. Iain Hall says:

    Richard I’m just sitting back and wondering how far it can go
    Photobucket

  637. Ray Dixon says:

    Your two links about Vietnam Vets being “spat on” are not FACTS, Sax … they are hearsay opinions. I was involved in anti-Vietnam war protests in the late 60s and early 70s but I did not direct my protests at the soldiers, only at the government – that’d be the filthy f*cking lying bastard Liberal government. So did every other protester I ever met or observed.

    I dunno what you think this diversion about Vietnam Vets has got to do with the topic but if it is, as I suspect, just part of your usual type of insulting gutter attack on those who see our history differently to you, then you are out of your freakin’ tree and (as usual) … WRONG.

    I think it’s about time you pulled your head in, you insulting blaggard – I thought you said your job here was “done”? Quite frankly, I reckon we all had a gutful of your crap about 200 comments ago. Time to grow up … and shut up.

  638. Sax says:

    Oh, ffs, mee bloody ow !

    We once again, we see the extent of the ignorance, and misdirected arrogance, that Mr Dixon inflicts on his fellow “oxygen thieves”.

    I really do wish you would do some research, instead of relying on that massively incoherrant intellect of yours, cos as usual, it’s not only off the beaten track, it needs a bloody map, a compass and a boy scout guide to find where in the hell you are going.
    In simple words that even you can understand Mr Dixon, as usual ?
    Your bloody wrong !

    In your protests, throwing cows blood on our returned servicemen, obviously you didn’t consider actually talking to one of them, and asking first hand what they endured ? A pity, you may have learned something.

    But how do you explain anything to a person, who already thinks they know bloody everything anyway ?

    You obviously weren’t there, upon their return ?
    You obviously weren’t there, when conscription first hit the fan ?
    You obviously weren’t there, when the first borrowed US metal coffins, containing our young
    me arrived back on Australian soil ?

    If you don’t like the tone of intelligent banter, which by the looks of it, you are too dumb to fathom, why not return to your own hauntings, and discuss the latest increase in council rates or something more death defying perhaps ?

    I think, unless you have something constructive to add to this planet Mr F’ing Know it All, it is time you did the rest of the planet a favour, travel to the edge of the Grand Canyon, and jump the f’ing hell off ?

    You’all have a happy day now.
    Delete this, and it will go over every hate site known to man you brainless fool
    I’ve been on the juice, enjoying our annual breakup with the lads, who are standing behind me, laughing at you as well, so am in the mood for a cat fight with the “woman” of these pages. i.e. You !

  639. Angel says:

    But Sax, Ray doesn’t delete posts.

  640. Sax says:

    But Angel, as he often loves beat us over the head with, at every opportunity, he has authorship rights here. So, if we don’t bow at his feet, in his presence, or don’t agree with him at every turn, he has the power to wipe our comments at his whim ?
    Ho hum….

    Every one has their opinions, and as we have seen in this posting above, the subject is still tender with a lot of people. To have some power, ego driven, fool come in and universally denigrate the service of people that died, and were maimed forever, in his usual disrespectful manner, not only lacks intelligence, but also compassion, and just good old common sense.

    But, I suppose, like Brown, it was all a figment of our imaginations. That it really didn’t happen, and that it was just all a publicity stunt. That our servicemen got their limbs shot off, died, came home so drugged up, that they haven’t had a decent night’s sleep since.
    But hey, according to Ray, that didn’t happen. It was all media beat up ?

    No wonder it is nearly impossible to find a vet, that will actually admit to serving in Vietnam, never mind what they did, and how they survived ? I know I wouldn’t !

  641. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, I have not denigrated any soldiers. You are a complete, raving tosser. You take what I say and embellish it into something totally fabricated by a mad man. To set you straight:

    I was in my early teens in 1965 when that arsehole Menzies announced we would enter the Vietnam war with the USA and that he’d draft 20 year-olds into national service and send them over.

    I joined in many anti-war protests including the 1970 moratorium because I firmly belived the war was not justified and that conscripting young people like me (not able to vote until age 21 in those days) was immoral.

    I never protested against returning soldiers or “threw blood” at them as you you insanely suggest I did. I don’t believe there were any organised anti-returning soldier protests. There were some isolated incidents (as JM has pointed out) but they were in no way representative of the anti-war movement whose sole focus was on the government.

    I considered not registering for the draft in the year I turned 20 as some others I knew were doing but I didn’t want to give up my education and career and go into hiding to avoid being hauled off to prison by the Military Police. I figured that, as only one third of all those registered would be drafted, I’d take my chances that my number (ie my birthdate) wouldn’t be drawn from the barrel in what had to be the most bizarre and unbelievably f*cked system ever invented – a lottery on your life, a one in three chance you’ll be shot at and maybe killed. As it turned out the day before and the day after my birthdate were drawn but not mine in the only lottery in the world where the losers were actually the winners.

    I know and have met quite a few Vietnam vets and I have never run them down or criticised them for going there. It wasn’t their fault that they were sent to an immoral war by a disgraceful government.

    As for your revealing comment “Delete this, and it will go over every hate site known to man”, I have no intention of deleting it because it says a lot about you and who and what you are. You’re a fake, Sax. This is not the first time you’ve threatened to stalk me by posting your insulting bile on anonymous hate blogs. In fact last time you actually carried it through. That makes you a lowlife, scumbag, anonymous stalker. Proud of yourself?

  642. Sax says:

    If you were in your early teens, (as I was btw), in 65 Ray, you wouldn’t have come up for the draft ? Conscription ended in 72. You would have missed it by a couple of years, as I did.
    You want to walk that one back by any chance, cos I am not buying it ? Talk about fakes.
    😆

    I don’t think you actually know (or really care) what, or how you say your piece Ray. That has been proven on these pages many times. You have no respect, nor regard, for anyone else on this planet. That has been proven time, and time again. When you get caught out, you go and throw a fit, and claim innocence. Well, everyone is on to you.

    Finally, Mr Dixon attempts, blithely, to change tack, again, in the vain hope that no one is interested or is noticing.

    Yes, I am extremely proud of myself. I don’t frequent a dozen blogs as you have divulged yourself.
    I don’t make facts up to suit an argument.
    I don’t denigrate anyone on these pages, unless, like you, they have deserved it.
    So yes, I am extremely proud of myself.
    Also, be careful who you call a “fake”. Man is that the pot calling the kettle black.

    Point your ugly little snout down at someone else innkeeper. You are just making a fool of yourself, as well as your failed arguments.

  643. JM says:

    Sax: I am extremely proud of myself.

    I think we know that Sax, and I think we’re all a bit tired of it.

    As for your “early teens” argument, your arithmetic skills are as poor as your comprehension. Let’s try it shall we?

    Let’s assume that “early teens” means either 13 (the earliest possible) or 14 (have to include this to get the plural)

    1972-1965 = 7 years
    13 + 7 = 20, ie. 1972
    14 + 6 = 20, ie. 1971

    Clearly you can’t even add up.

    And BTW, since we mention denigration, I note you’re quite willing to denigrate Ray for registering and exposing himself to the risk of involvement in a war – simply because he doesn’t agree with you .

    But on the other hand you recruit every person in khaki – volunteer or nasho, willing or reluctant – to your side of the argument. Absolutely, regardless of what their actual views are.

    I agree with Ray. You’re a fake. And you should keep quiet, you’ve gone on long enough for any good that you could have done.

  644. Ray Dixon says:

    I was in the draft ballot, Sax. You’re a fool.

  645. Sax says:

    Oh, how tear jerkingly touching, really, a good old fashioned kleenex moment.

    Don’t like it, when you guys get some of your personal abuse slung back in your faces do you ?

    Perhaps, next time, when you take pot shots at someone on these pages, to stroke your already over inflated egos, you two clowns (three if you include RR), you will remember today, when you were both “called out”, and stories found wanting ? Perhaps you should aim your b/s at someone who won’t fight back ?

    As the old adage goes ladies, can’t hack it, don’t dish it !

    I can do the math, but even in our wildest dreams, he still didn’t go.
    Even if you do believe the rhetoric, he still did not get called up, so it’s all academic.

    I didn’t get the draft, and have admitted that, but I do know friends of the family’s sons that did go, and one that didn’t come back.

    If either of you two clowns had have ever get the tap on the shoulder, you would not now, (or forever inperpetuity), show your rampant disrespect for servicemen that your have, or what they went through. You would never do it. No matter how bloody twisted you both were. So, that is a sure sign to me, that you are both making it up as you go, a further insult to those that did ! I know better. I, as well as David have both served in the military, and the bond shared with those you serve with is forever, and is a loyalty that is unshakable.
    Your rhetoric not only doesn’t show that, it shows the reverse.

  646. GD says:

    Who is this ‘David’?

  647. Sax says:

    A former victim of Ray Dixon’s charm, his razor wit, his knife edge sarcasm, unspeakable love for his fellow man.

  648. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, you’re witnessing a Sax meltdown. His alter ego “David” had one here too … then along came “Len” or “Sax”. The guy’s a nutter, GD, and I think even you can see his raving illogic and nasty streak.

  649. Sax says:

    Speak of the not so silent assassin ?
    Oh, give us a big kiss you big lug you.
    😆

  650. Angel says:

    Ignore the paranoia Sax. Must be your turn to receive it again.

  651. Sax says:

    Davo is the only one in this office showing any common sense here.
    He is still out in the hangar, swigging top shelf with the rest of the gang, by the barbie.
    Right where I should be.
    See ya !
    😉

    Give em hell Angel !

  652. GD says:

    Seeing as this thread is shot to hell, I’d like to ask Sax why he has an imaginary friend called David? And why he feels it necessary to refer to him so constantly?

    Also in the loony tunes department is a blog I’ve been pointed to that is solely devoted to sneering and sniggering over every post and comment made on the Sandpit. Fairs fair, of course, say what you will, but really, to spend that much time hating Iain’s blog and writing snivelling comment after sniggering comment about Iain’s posts, and his commenters, is surely the height of juvenility.

    This puerile group of malcontents, dissatisfied with their place in the blog world, have focused on Iain’s blog, attempting to name or discredit all who comment there.

    I’m particularly pleased with the designations given me. Gigdiary, has become ‘Never Has Gigs’, this reminds me of ‘Dances With Wolves’, although perhaps ‘gigless’ is better value. They should have followed through with ‘Gigless In Toongabbie’, because the hypocritical elitists are obviously denigrating me for living in a suburb that is the epitome of their vision for a multicultural Australia.

    They espouse a vision of multicultural society, yet mock the necessary welfare that it takes to achieve that.
    It’s funny how their real feelings come out when they are hating on others.

    And of course, one anonymous commenter had to, once again, name me.

    As I’ve said before, you know where I live, have the guts to front me, or have the guts to put your name alongside your snivelling, pathetic comments.

  653. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, Sax’s imaginary friend David’s full name was actually “David Davidson”. Apart from having very unimaginative parents (it’s like Mr & Mrs Robertson calling their kid Robert), David wrote in identical style to “Sax” and held the identical views. He too was inclined to lace his arguments with personal attacks and insults. He cracked the shits and went away after one epic stoush I had with him here over 2 years ago. No one believes Sax’s story that they are not one and the same person.

    As for that anonymous hate blog, it really is the pits and an extreme form of stalking. I suspect Sax has contributed there – at least it’s the one he referred to when he threatened me earlier in this thread. So has PKD, who is not who he seems to be either. Age journo Jo Chandler is, in my opinion, the obnoxious Sylvia (a carry on from her even more obnoxious Bridgit Gread persona*). I agree with you that the blog says more about those who comment there than those they denigrate.

    (*There’s a vast amount of evidence to support that opinion).

    Yeah, this thread is shot and you can point the finger at Sax – I mean, who the hell else would be bothered to make hundreds & hundreds of repititive and raving comments on a single thread? Man cant be doing much flying.

  654. Sax says:

    Oh, listen to the churlish, infantile protestations of innocence people. Oh, boo hoo.
    Ffs Dicko, you don’t honestly expect a person, of ANY intelligence would believe your cries of pain, and protestations of innocence would you ?

    Again folks, he reverts to his standard MO of attacking people’s identities rather than admit a defeated argument ?
    What was that you were saying about stalking Dicko ?
    Put your hand up. This thread is proof of that.

    I haven’t had entire blog posts, written about me as you have.

    I didn’t have the some fifty odd comments afterwards, of people that I have insulted, backing the post up personal experiences of their dealings with your misguided ego ?
    wanna keep going ? Cos I got a few million more

    People here a pretty intelligent and mature, unlike yourself, and they only have to read your previous comments, in the thread above to be convinced otherwise of your dribble.

    Do a google on len saxby, and very little comes back
    Do a google on ray dixon and see what happens.
    A can of worms, bloody pages of it, of it’s arrogance, and immaturity are presented before you.

    All you have are theories Dicko.
    I have presented facts. Facts that anyone with half a brain can verify within nanoseconds.

    You’all have a happy day now !
    I wonder who else here you can challenge here now ?
    I think it’s tried this crap on nearly everyone now hasn’t it ?

  655. Sax says:

    Yawn ! Moderation….
    How wonderfully, but typically predictable Dicko.
    A coward as well as a liar.
    Relish your bravado.

  656. Iain Hall says:

    No Sax you put your own comment into moderation by using word “stalking”

  657. Sax says:

    Having suffered Dicko’s moderation finger on previous occasions it is not hard to see how I came to that conclusion.

    So here folks, is something a real man would do……

    Sorry for accusing you of deleting/moderation of the comment Dicko.

    See, that’s how it’s done, not hard is it ?
    Not sorry about shooting down your dribble tho

    BTW, good to see ya back Iain.

  658. Sax says:

    GD,
    want my, and David’s history, ask Iain, he knows the truth.
    Or you can listen to Dicko’s dribble.
    It’s up to you.

  659. Iain Hall says:

    Can I be just a bit seasonal and suggest “peace and good will to all” here at the Sandpit?
    Please??? Its nearly Christmas guys

    Anyway for real amusement over on the dark-side JM’s champions have been having something of a hissy fit. denouncing all and sundry who enjoy playing here the acrimoniousness could be cut with a knife and for what? My sins of the distant past? Oh deary me that mob are a hateful bunch and rather Like JM when put to the test they always seem to come up short, I’m still waiting for JM to back up this claims on this thread about yours truly. They keep insisting that I am forever trying to find out the identities of those who comment here yet that is what they them selves keep trying to do, their recent treatment Of GD is the latest example of their ongoing hypocrisy that goes way back and includes the hacking of my email and blogging accounts. Yet they keep vilifying me for “stalking”???Pot meet Kettle!!!

  660. Sax says:

    Don’t hold your breath.
    I see they couldn’t think up an original name for themselves, rather, pinch mine and David’s.
    Oh, how droll.
    Couldn’t think up an original idea between the lot of them.
    You people wonder why I don’t frequent any other blogs other than this one ?
    Well, there’s your reason, and that’s probably about to change as well.
    A good advertisement for birth control though ?

  661. Angel says:

    A blue cowboy shirt????

  662. JM says:

    Iain: ’m still waiting for JM to back up this claims on this thread about yours truly. They keep insisting that I am forever trying to find out the identities of those who comment

    C’mon Iain. You protest too much. You’ve repeatedly asked, nay demanded, that I identify myself to you over the last few years.

    I don’t really think it’s necessary for me to trawl this blog to find instances of it. There are many.

  663. Iain Hall says:

    Well JM if that were the case then you will have no trouble finding just one instance when I have done that. Sadly your quest will be futile because I have just never done that. I Don’t care at all who you are, but I do care about just what are those mythical “scientific” credentials that you keep alluding to in your comments here at the Sandpit. I think that they don’t exist outside your own imagination mostly because you won’t even nominate the branch of science that they are in. from where I sit all that I can conclude is that you you have an advanced degree in Lattiology from the unwashed armpit university…

  664. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain > “Can I be just a bit seasonal and suggest “peace and good will to all” here at the Sandpit?
    Please??? Its nearly Christmas guys”

    You’re right, Iain, but I think the problem here is “Sax”, who just won’t shut up with the crap talk and denigration. I’ll just add this final response to his last diatribe of hate & paranoia and hopefully that’ll be the end of it (if Sax can restrain himself from further attacks, that is – I think he’s had more than a reasonable go here):

    Sax, you’ve reached a new low when you start referring to me as “Dicko”. It just shows that you have no respect for others.

    How is anything I’ve said on this thread evidence of stalking behaviour? The only person who has threatened to stalk anyone is you when you threatened to post about me on “every anonymous hate blog in the world”.

    And that blog post (anonymously) written about me is only evidence of the author’s stalking. It says more about him or her than it does about me. The comments that followed were all anonymous shitheads and, for all you know, could have have been written by the same person (and most probably were).

    I haven’t done this before but, at your request, I did a Google search on “Len Saxby” and very little comes up. There’s some bloke in the UK with that name (obviously not you) and someone in the USA who seems to have a hernia problem. The only Australian mentioned is a “Len Saxby Davidson” at that anonymous hate blog you have referred to, you know, the one you threatened earlier in this thread to post about me on. The one you’ve referred to here. The one you’ve brought up in previous stoushes and made similar threats.

    Despite your insistance, your name is obviously not “Len Saxby” or even “David Davidson” but I reckon there are too many coincidences to dismiss the possibilty that you are a stalking scumbag (as well as a lying windbag who doesn’t have the first clue on how to conduct a respectful debate).

  665. Sax says:

    I didn’t refer to it first, Iain did. Didn’t even know it existed.

    😆 😆 😆
    Oh, Princess Precious,
    your protestations of innocence are touching, really.
    Your the one googling my name, and trying to find where I live, and you call me out for st*lking ?
    Get a grip, your embarrassment is taking hold of whatever good sense you had left, which wasn’t much to begin with.

    don’t “reckon”, or even “think” Dicko, you simply haven’t got the equipment for it.

    Relish your success Dicko, I haven’t got the world renown, and well earned internet reputation you have, and you call me the st*lker ?

    I don’t have to put you up on every hate blog in the world, your other many victims have already done that for me by the looks of it !

  666. Ray Dixon says:

    You certainly did refer to it first in this thread, Sax, long before Iain did. And you referred to your intentions to post about me there, as you have before, so your claim that you “didn’t even know it existed” is another bald-faced lie.

    I only Googled “Len Saxby” at YOUR REQUEST (“Do a google on len saxby, and very little comes back” – that’s an invitation), but I have no desire to find out where you live – that’s another of your paranoid, bald-faced lies. Likewise, I have no interest in your real name an occupation (if you even have one!). Why the hell would I? Unlike you, I don’t go around to stalking anonymous blogs posting crap about others, or threatening to do so.

    And calling me “Dicko” again just shows what a disrespectful tosser you are. As for my “well earned internet reputation” there is not one shred of credible evidence here or anywhere else that I have behaved in an underhanded manner. That’s probably why you can’t name any specific instances and, instead, use the vague ravings and unsubstantiated fabrications and mockery of others in a pathetic attempt to discredit me. Things that cannot be proved because I have never done what you suggest I have.

    Why don’t you just rule a line under this and give up your obsession with denigrating the character of those who just happen to have a different opinion to yours? For the record, I agreed (if you can recall) with your initial position re the Darwin Base not being a problem. And I disagreed with JM. Where I disagreed with you was on the extended arguments you introduced that included personal attacks, such as your claims about Vietnam Vets.

    Give it a bone Sax. Enjoy Christmas with “the family” (and “David”) and call it quits – that’d be a good idea, don’t you think?

  667. Sax says:

    There is the other shoe folks.
    The razor wit didn’t work.
    The lies didn’t work.
    The inuendo didn’t work
    The insults didn’t work.

    Respect is earned, not bestowed. So get a grip. What’s that old prover ? You reap what you sew, and it’s all starting to come back now, and bite you on the ar*e.

    Funny thing about history ? It rarely lies. It is there for all to see, and judge, and most importantly, REPEAT ITSELF, as can be seen above.

    Don’t have to discredit you, your own words have done a perfectly good job of that, all on their lonesome. They are here, (and many other places by the looks of it), for ALL to see and judge for themselves.

    Again, your classic attack on a persons identity has failed. You really should think up a new strategy. That one just isn’t working for you anymore.
    Perhaps a new hobby ? Maybe take up knitting ?

  668. Ray Dixon says:

    There’s just no end to the f*ckwittery that comes from “Sax”, arguably the weirdest piece of work on the Internet.

  669. Sax says:

    Above is the reason as to why I didn’t take it’s protestations, for a treuce seriously folks.

    Been down that road before with Mr Dixon.
    Only took one comment, and straight back into its old routine.
    Ho hum.
    It is no wonder why you have no credibility Sir.
    Have fun, the xyl and I are heading out for a good feed, and p*ss up with the locals, at the local. You can stay here and talk to all your friends ?

  670. Ray Dixon says:

    The reality is, Sax, you just won’t stop. You’re an obsessive, as this mammoth post & comment count proves. You just love the sound of your own voice. No one else does.

  671. Angel says:

    Sax – I seem to take the approach that the thread on the other blog was solely directed a particular person here and through association we have now all been included. Funny how our star attraction seems to overlook that. As for respect, well the amount of names I have been called on this blog, getting defensive over “dicko” is a way over-reaction.

  672. Ray Dixon says:

    That thread is directed at nearly everyone who comments here and any mention of you, GD, Iain, etc has nothing to do with me. As for Sax referring to me as “Dicko”, calling people by their surnames (or incorrectly abbreviated ones) is childish and a sign the person has lost it. And what the hell has that got to do with you anyway?

  673. Sax says:

    I agree Angel. A pity, but hey, don’t worry about it, I’ve been called worse over the years ? 😆

    The funny thing is, and keeping the theme of the post in mind, there is a credibility problem here. The person has cried wolf so many times, that, as the story goes, no one believes the cries anymore.

    Same as Bob Brown, no one believes him either. He is on a quest for power, and Dullard and her gang have fallen into his lap. Like elsewhere on this page, Browny has delusions of grandeur, and once the deal has been done, and delivered, watch him get slapped back into his rightful place in history. The bottom of the pile, where the rest of us normal people, who aren’t deluded by their own self worth, and place in history, perhaps reside ?

    I think most people call that plane of existence reality ?

  674. Angel says:

    “And what the hell has that got to do with you anyway?”

    Was that a bit of irony then, considering I was speaking to Sax?

  675. Sax says:

    That’s what happens when narcissism and rampant paranoia combine Angel.
    Not pretty is it ?
    Welcome to our world..

  676. Angel says:

    Been there before Sax

  677. Sax says:

    Very good.
    😉

  678. Angel says:

    Merry Christmas Iain.
    I have friends in the military who will not be home this Christmas so this is keeping it on topic.

  679. Richard Ryan says:

    Bob Brown has every right to have a paranoia about the USA——IT NOW HAS OVER 4 MILLION homeless over there in America——–revolution time is on the horizon—–, bring it on I say

  680. Richard Ryan says:

    I suggest Sax go to Christmas Island for Christmas——and see how the real world works, thanks to his American friends. While we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have people fleeing from these countries. Quite simple really, war causes, refugees. We have seen it all before, VIETNAM—–which was another f### up—-thanks to the Americans.

  681. Sax says:

    Richard oh Richard….
    4 Million homeless in the USA huh ?
    Isn’t it fortunate, that you don’t believe in the art of exageration ?
    As usual, you know the drill.
    A source please or it didn’t happen !

    The numbers that emerge are 2.3 million people (based on the October estimate) and 3.5 million people (based on the February estimate).This translates to approximately 1% of the U.S. population experiencing homelessness each year, 38% (October) to 39% (February) of them being children (Urban Institute 2000).
    http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/How_Many.html

    But as the article points out. This figure is just a wild guess. 1% of the population is the consensus.
    It doesn’t include people who are living with friends or relatives, or those that choose to live on the streets, that won’t accept help. What this has to do with the main argument who knows but anyway.

    Actually, by comparison, our figures are bloody worse. The average google brings up the figure of 105k homeless in Oz. But, those figures are only guesses for the same numerous reasons.

    As to this entire argument, I don’t see the correlation ?
    Are you merely changing the subject again ?

    and as for your Christmas Island crap ?

    You left out one important thing, regarding your population mix of the arrivals ?
    That being ?
    A very large part of the population break down of these voyages of desperation and death are none other than, wait for it folks

    Sri Lankans !

    That country has been in civil war for decades. Also brought up on these pages on many previous occasions. Or are you going to blame the US for that as well ?

  682. Angel says:

    Things are desperate on Christmas Island and would not be the place anyone would want to have their Christmas lunch at. Lettuce $12 / Cucumber $6 / Cabbage $13 / Rental properties are rising 60% upon re-signing of leases. The locals blame the Immigration Department of Australia, not the USA Richard.

  683. JM says:

    Iain: Well JM if that were the case then you will have no trouble finding just one instance when I have done that.

    Iain you have accused me in the past of being Brigit Gread (whoever the hell that is) and on one very well known occasion, Ms Jo Chandler. It appears that on that occasion the real Ms Chandler threatened you with legal action.

    You have also in the past gathered many of the references I made to my personal life and re-published them asserting copyright over them, presumably in the hope that someone who knows me would recognize the references and identify me.

    Those actions are not the actions of someone who is unconcerned with my identity. They are the actions of someone desperate to discover my identity.

    These are well known facts. We don’t have to go over them again.

  684. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Mate I don’t give a toss who you are in the real world, you choose to come to the Sandpit and play here no one is twisting your arm and forcing you to do so, but as the saying goes its MY sandpit and you play here on my terms or you go and play elsewhere. As you keep coming back you must get some pleasure from the experience. As you must realise I love being challenged and I love a damn good argument and I thank you for giving me that.

    Iain you have accused me in the past of being Brigit Gread (whoever the hell that is) and on one very well known occasion, Ms Jo Chandler. It appears that on that occasion the real Ms Chandler threatened you with legal action.

    🙄 In the first instance “Bridgit Gread” is not a real person it is a Pseudonym so If I have aired the suspicion that you and she are created by the same person then that is not seeking your real identity. Secondly Jo Chandler has only once threatened me with legal action and that was not for suggesting that she was posting on the internet under the Pseudonym of “JM”

    You have also in the past gathered many of the references I made to my personal life and re-published them asserting copyright over them, presumably in the hope that someone who knows me would recognize the references and identify me.

    It is a condition of commenting here that if you do so under a pseudonym you cede any copyright to me as blog owner so I can do what I please with the comments that you freely post to my blog. But that is old news JM because I am sure that you recall that I did that exercise to prove a point about just how much you have revealed about your self in your comments and that by collating that information a profile of JM could be created.I did not care then and I don’t care now who you are.

    Those actions are not the actions of someone who is unconcerned with my identity. They are the actions of someone desperate to discover my identity.

    Curious yes, but desperate? Come off it, you are just a nameless commentator on my blog and as long as you play nice I welcome and enjoy your nonsense.But don’t flatter yourself with delusions that I care enough to bother to seek out your identity, its too much boring work and I would much rather spend the time working on the new project with my daughter or playing on the PS3 with my son.

    These are well known facts. We don’t have to go over them again.

    No they are your paranoid misconceptions about what I do with my time and how I relate to hostile commentators here at the Sandpit, as some one who claims a science gong I would have expected more of you when it comes to defining a “fact” and once again I have to insist that you find a citation to back up your claims or withdraw them.

  685. JM says:

    Iain: I have to insist that you find a citation to back up your claims or withdraw them.

    Your last comment where you concede the facts, but dispute their interpretation, will do just fine.

  686. Ray Dixon says:

    Jo Chandler has only once threatened me with legal action …

    For merely asking her (privately) if she posted as Bridgit Gread. I’ve read the email exchange between you and Chandler and I think you could publish it without any fear of it being defamatory. Anyone who responds so defensively (as Chandler did to your simple question) comes across as hiding something in my opinion. Why not just say “no, you’re mistaken”? It’s not defamation just to say or ask if ‘John Smith’ posts as ‘Bozo the Clown’.

  687. Sax says:

    Don’t you just love the left’s selective interpretation regime ? How delightfully arrogant ?
    He can’t back em up Iain, otherwise he would have. The only place they exist is in his/her own mind.

    Like his entire argument on this thread, the above has lacked actual evidence, of not only your wrong doing, but also of its entire argument, as a whole.

    Left wing dingbats, allied with useless minutia, designed to fog a lack of research skills, deserve to be challenged. That is what has happened above, and as usual, when lies are challenge, they collapse in a heap of dung, and skulk back to their dark haunts, or change tack, and challenge identities.

  688. Ray Dixon says:

    As opposed to chest-thumping right wing numbnuts presenting inconclusive (and often irrelevant evidence) who then proceed to attack the integrity of those who write under their real name. While writing under an alias themselves, of course. People like, um let’s think …YOU.

    When are you going to draw that line under the personal attacks on real identities, Sax? When hell freezes over or when Iain closes the commments to this endless thread?

  689. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    What crap you sprout!
    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos\
    I concede nothing, instead I point out the errors in the foundations of your claims!

  690. JM says:

    Iain: Curious yes,

    An admission that you are concerned about my identity

    but desperate? Come off it,

    A disputation about the interpretation of your behaviour.

    My point I think.

  691. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks to all who have enjoyed this thread but it is now so long that it takes too long to load

    however I will point out JM that being curious about who commentators are is a vastly differnt to trying to find out so that makes it my point and furtehr it proves how desperately you are clutching for any straw here.

    Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: