PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

500N 21st Jan 2014 04:49

re Pom, Brit or whatever, interesting perspectives from people.

I am probably more like Clare Prop.

Also, I think being English in the Aussie army is a baptism of fire
and you either have thick skin and laugh it off or die.

FYI, I think "Pom" has become far less used than it used to be.

500N 21st Jan 2014 04:52

Ken

You are entitled to your opinion as I am.

No, I don't know her and don't want to, I see and hear far too much of her
and her / the Greens BS on TV, Radio and papers and see the consequences
of what they do every time we have a bushfire and people lose everything
plus the damaged they have caused to the country especially in the last 6
years.

So, my suggestion might be evil to use but was just trying to get some
use out of her ;)

rh200 21st Jan 2014 05:25

Whether the military purchases off the shelf or custom has to be decided on each case.

The small population versus large isolated area as well as our intergration with our main ally. In reference to the subs he nuclear option is good for us from a range perspective. But they are known to be noisy.
The electric subs suppliment the yanks nicely, but I'm of the understanding the "off the shelf" options from Europe don't cut the mustard for what we need in our situation. I could be wrong, always happy to be corrected.

Hence a optimisation problem comparison from a extra support and loss of capability of off the shelf subs, to custom ones and the certain cost over runs with development.

There are obvious savings with off the shelf, like M1,s , C17 etc, etc. In these cases the requirements where straight forward and easily satisfied. Other like the Carabiou and Subs are not.

Takan Inchovit 21st Jan 2014 05:27

I love a pom with a thick skin :E they need more like that in their cricket team.

Seems like the Labour party unionist are supporting criminal bikie gangs in Qld now and are planning to splurge hard earned members funds to fight Newman's new laws. I thought that money was for supporting the workers. Typical leftie ideals to crap all over the things that made them.

Ken Borough 21st Jan 2014 07:21

Although many here will disagree with its thrust, this article from Eureka Street offers a sobering read and food for thought. It was written by a Jesuit who has a Doctorate in International and Administrative Law.


The current dispute with Indonesia over border incursions by the Australian Navy is symptomatic of a deeper problem the militarisation of political discourse. Von Clausewitz famously claimed that 'war is politics by other means': in other words, that military force is employed in service of political ends. In Australia, as elsewhere in the West, this is being taken to an extreme not previously seen outside authoritarian societies.

It is true that the Westminster tradition of politics has always viewed the deployment of the armed forces as a matter for the executive (with the governor-general being head of the military). Nevertheless, there were two clear understandings underpinning this tradition.

The first was that military actions were international, involving other states. Secondly, the military was always to remain subject to strict civilian control and oversight demonstrated, for example, by the fact that control of the military's purse-strings is a matter for the elected parliament alone and not for the executive.

The rhetoric of the 'War on Terror' has undercut these assumptions and thereby opened the way for military action to become a blanket invocation by which Western governments (like their traditionally more authoritarian counterparts) could shield their less appetising workings from inconvenient scrutiny. Thus, even Members of Congress are petitioning the US Government to reveal to them how its US$52 billion 'black budget' is spent.

The spying scandals which have rocked the West in the wake of the Snowden revelations have revealed just how much power has been surrendered by democratically elected legislatures to their militaries in the name of 'security'. This growing militarisation of the state not only affects domestic human rights policy but cuts across government operations and philosophy more generally, tainting all aspects of democratic life.

So it is that in Australia the militarisation of refugee policy under the guise of international conflict (which names like 'Sovereign Borders' is obviously designed to connote) is used as a device for concealment. Even the once-weekly press conferences on boat interceptions have stopped and Parliament itself (which, under the Constitution, funds the military) is denied answers to straightforward questions about refugee policy on the basis that these have become military operational matters.

In a perverse twist, refugees themselves often the victims of war are now an enemy to be fought with all the might of the nation's armed forces. Even Melbourne's Herald Sun, not traditionally known for its outspokenness on refugee issues, notes that government secrecy on this issue has little impact on genuine people-smugglers, falls short of democratic standards of accountability and harms relations with Indonesia.

And, as the news of recent days demonstrates, this military rhetoric in the service of secrecy runs the risk of generating the very international conflicts against which the armed services are supposed to defend. When even the most routine border patrols are removed from oversight, it is scarcely surprising that abuses should occur.

While Australians seem generally to have become inured to breaches of international refugee law (such as return of asylum seekers to persecution), the last few days indicate that even such breaches of individual human rights can have international consequences affecting the most fundamental areas of relations between states. Where these include the violation of another state's 'sovereign borders' (such as with the incursions into Indonesian territory by Australian craft), we are dealing with the most basic attack on international norms.

Yet, in Australia, state sovereignty (at least where the 'sovereign borders' are those of other states) seems to have become yet one more piece of 'collateral damage' in the war on refugees.

Flying Binghi 21st Jan 2014 07:37

RAOTFL
 
Gets himself stuck in sea ice and then wins an award...

"...the Frederick White Prize for scientific achievements contributing to the understanding of natural phenomena goes to Professor Chris Turney, University of New South Wales..."

Guess who won an award for understanding Natural Phenomenon? JoNova


...:hmm:













.

500N 21st Jan 2014 08:06

Taiwan

A couple of days ago in the Brisbane times a good article on why the qld bikie laws arent working. We'll worth a read.

Also explains why the union is going to get involved in the fight.

Airey Belvoir 21st Jan 2014 08:14

Ken, the professional "bleeding hearts" can write as much polemic as they wish, the incontrovertible bottom line is that if the so-called refugees tried to enter Australia with all their identifying documentation intact then we wouldn't have to bang them up in detention to determine whether they were who they said they were and whether or not they were a genuine refugee rather than a queue jumper simply after a better life and unwilling to wait in a queue.


That's what gets up normal peoples noses and makes them spit chips when SHY appears on screen.

bosnich71 21st Jan 2014 08:30

Worrals .... Brit ? NO ! English yes.
I don't mind being called a pom, to my face, if it was and I disagreed with the speaker I could at least attempt to give them a thick lip.
However I do object to smart arsed journalists, amongst others, using the term when they wouldn't refer to any other minority in such a manner because it would go against their diversity training programme but somehow think that the English don't count.


Clare Prop .... agree.


Takan .... nice to hear the Aussies talking about cricket once again after 4 years of silence . http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...cons/icon7.gif

Takan Inchovit 21st Jan 2014 09:11


.... nice to hear the Aussies talking about cricket once again after 4 years of silence .
Concur on that one!

rh200 21st Jan 2014 10:08


in other words, that military force is employed in service of political ends. In Australia, as elsewhere in the West, this is being taken to an extreme not previously seen outside authoritarian societies.
What a complete and utter pile of [email protected] Its a typical piece that is written to try and spread a mythos.

Australia is using the military to do the job because we don't have a coast guard. The military are the best equipped, and trained to carry it out. Having the best equipped and trained people to do this job, means there is less chance of unintended consequences occurring.

500N 21st Jan 2014 10:18

The military has been used to service Political ends for years. After all,
the ADF implements whatever Gov't policy is at that time by following orders.

"Australia is using the military to do the job because we don't have a coast guard. The military are the best equipped, and trained to carry it out. Having the best equipped and trained people to do this job, means there is less chance of unintended consequences occurring."

And the North Korean Ship, the Pong Su was a very good example where
Customs & Immigration and the Police, all in boats could not get the ship
to stop OR board it while underway. the result was they called out the military
to do the job and then hand over to the Police.

Now, even if you had a Coast Guard, their is no way in hell that the Coast Guard would have the assetts (boats, guns and aircraft), people, qualifications and training to do what, the SAS, Commandos and RAN did that day so this
idea of a Coast Guard to take over what the mil does is fanciful.

OK, very rare that the Pong Su level is required but it is required at some
point. A sea borne terrorist attack couldn't be handled by the Coast Guard.

Fliegenmong 21st Jan 2014 10:20

"I don't mind being called a pom, to my face, if it was and I disagreed with the speaker I could at least attempt to give them a thick lip."

So a typical Brit/Pom/English resort to violence and thuggery then..:rolleyes:

"a good article on why the qld bikie laws arent working."

Whaddya mean not working??? Of course it must be working!!It's an LNP initiative! :ugh:

I haven't read it, but is it because Unions are soon to declared outlaw criminal gangs also? :rolleyes: I suppose any 'journalistic' / media outlet that doesn't tow the LNP line will also be labelled a criminal gang....which would be dead easy really, anyone not MSM, ergo, anyone ABC.....and just to keep the old bag quiet, aunty Ethel's knitting club will be declared a outlaw criminal gang....keeps Aunty Ethel behind bars and away from the sherry:suspect:

500N 21st Jan 2014 10:23

I'm back home now, I'll find the article.

Give me 10.

500N 21st Jan 2014 10:24


The end justifies the means: why Queensland is losing the bikie war

The end justifies the means: why Queensland is losing the bikie war


I feel a fair bit of what is said makes good sense.

Also, the examples of abuse of the laws is a major reason people
will rise up against them.

Fliegenmong 21st Jan 2014 10:58

I think I perhaps I should elaborate here...if a Semi trailer driver 'fell asleep', wandered over the wrong side of the highway and 'took out' 20-30 criminal bikies ,how is that a bad thing? 20/30 low life criminals removed from the gene pool / drug distribution network.

(But did the truckie fall asleep because the criminal bikers were removed from the amphetamine distribution chain?.....Chicken and egg that!)

Agree that the new laws are open to abuse, and the party introducing them will no doubt have designs on abusing them in the future...but to say they don't work? Surely not!..It's LNP legislation after all!!

At first it looks like crazy on the run, back of the beer coaster, ALP like thinking, until you recognise it's a lot more sinister than that in it's potential scope....

But then, that's Campby.....just like a micro managing cantrol freak like the KRudd....being ex military, campby is most unsuited to a leadership role in the general populace...I understand the polls to be reflecting this....:hmm:

RJM 21st Jan 2014 11:00


Re SA and the money pit, surely someone in SA can attract some sort
of business that is new, growing and employs people. I don't think I have
ever seen a business plan in the media for SA.
South Australia has an annual gross domestic product (ie retail value of all goods and services produced) of about $90 billion, that's $90,000 million. That is around the same as the GDP of Manchester/Salford in the UK. The state of Victoria, to the immediate east of SA, has a GDP of about $330 billion. The US has a GDP of about $16,000 billion.

GMH in SA in 2013 contributed about 1% of the state's GDP, and a tiny fraction ($60 million) of the state government's annual income of about 16,000 million (.003%). But it supports about 1700 jobs directly and a total of about 10,000 jobs all up.

Most of GMH's highly skilled work is done overseas. Most of the featherbedded workers at GMH Elizabeth (Adelaide) are involved in assembly rather than manufacturing.

The trouble is that the economics of making almost anything in Australia are very poor. The SA government already has a couple of empty car factories on its hands - the former Chrysler then Mitsubishi factories at Tonsley Park and at Lonsdale.

With a state election coming up in March this year, and the Liberals tipped to beat the incumbent Labor government, it will be interesting to see who promises what.

Clare Prop 21st Jan 2014 11:14

NO Fliegs a typical pom or brit is just a person like you. But if someone is being genuinely insulting, for example if being blamed for all that is apparently "wrong" with Australia, then it can be bloody annoying as is being called a white c***. Something that is apparently acceptable here and again no point getting all sensitive about other people's prejudices and ignorance just walk away.

Fliegenmong 21st Jan 2014 11:15

Having read that 500, no mate, perhaps it really is Coalition back of the beer coaster knee-jerk policy.....luckily Chris Pyne is moving to change the schools curriculum, so that coalition f&*k ups, can be 'revisionist theory'...:ok::ugh:

The final paragraph makes mention of the G20.....now here is something I want to know....all the world leaders recently gathered at very short notice in a country as dangerous as Seth Effrica to attend the Mandela funeral......but there are months of planning, traffic disruption etc etc to host the G20 later in the year in Brisbane....so much so I recall hearing on the radio that flying a kite in a park during the G20 can be construed as a criminal/terrorist offence...:uhoh::eek:

What the F*&k have we become???:ugh::ugh:

Fliegenmong 21st Jan 2014 11:23

NO Fliegs a typical pom or brit is just a person like you. But if someone is being genuinely insulting, for example if being blamed for all that is apparently "wrong" with Australia, then it can be bloody annoying as is being called a white c***. Something that is apparently acceptable here and again no point getting all sensitive about other people's prejudices and ignorance just walk away.

Copped plenty of nasty abuse in the UK in the early 90's Clare...plenty, I know that of which you speak :ok: But comments such as :

I don't mind being called a pom, to my face, if it was and I disagreed with the speaker I could at least attempt to give them a thick lip.

Indicate to me the mental capacity of the average UK/POM/BRIT.....that is, let's solve this with violence....rather than walk away....:rolleyes:


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.