Australia's Role in World War III

what did the australian government sign from the usa military 2 days after they shot the satellite down?

Originally posted by onesockon
what did the australian government sign from the usa military 2 days after they shot the satellite down?

What do you mean? That's very cryptic!!

What did they sign? Bush's leaving card?

reply to post by Vimes



because a bunch of 12 yr old farmers with machine guns dont seem too effective against thousand of highly trained killing machines.

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
i love australia- i hope to visit one day- and not just because of the hot women with their accents that bring me to my knees lmao
seriously tho i would hope they would assist us- not sure of their military capabilties but i know they have some damn good special forces. they have proven this over the past 100 years- esp. ww2 .could be a bonus. not sure how the uk goes on ruling them as was said but if there was a war the us and the uk have a pact so i don't know if they can make australia join in or not. but i hope so

We are not really too fussed about the royal family or the UK too much, we are still part of the commonwealth but its only taken as a title not a ruling... and yeah we do have a very very good special force.

the SAS, which are some of the top in the world. and yeah i read earlier that one of the posters maybe the OP said that australia is a bit on the neutral side? where did he get his information from? we've been with america in everything since WW1, WW2, Vietnam, iraq, and not to mention every secret mission that ASIO and the US secret service have combined in...

Australias army may not be big, but its some of the toughest and bravest of all. Just read all the testimonies by US troops. Australias army is small because our Special forces SAS are our main selling point...

and our military isnt the ones against whailing either, unlike america we arnt on the verge of martial law. our military isnt there for rule, its there for protection. its our hippie civilians risking their lives to ram and board the huge whailing vessels. and they are all volunteer... and as for some Pot toting stoners... I think they do a pretty good job and making them selves a nuisance for the Japs...

If a WW3 were to occour, i can assure you that australia will be in there 100% if needed or called upon... I for one would be drafted and sent to fight. its called WORLD WAR for a reason. most of the world will be affected by it or join it.

im ranting on now and theres probably lots of spelling and grammar errors in this. so i appologise. all im saying is Australia is NOT neutral.

reply to post by judasfish


ty judas- my pointand hopes proven i guess. makes me like the aussies even more!!! even if you were to stay neutral i would hope noone do anything to your country as you have such a diverse environment and indigeneous wildlife. i met an aussie here once and he was the bloodiest laughing storytellingbloke(sorry using his words)!!!! he was great to hang out with
btw is it really true about drop bears? or was he just messing with me?

and also i forgot to add where did mcarthur in ww2 retreat too?
huh australia
go figure

reply to post by Vimes


First of all the current Australian government under Kevin Rudd favours close ties with China. Kevin Rudd can speak fluent Mandarin which is a Chinese dialect. He realises like everybody else in the world nowadays that China is the future. He favours China over Japan who has been a long traditional ally of the US and Australia.

Second of all aircraft carriers are nothing anymore, other than a symbol of a country's prestige. During wartime carriers will be an easy target and be some of the first things destroyed. If missiles can't knock them out than mini-nukes will blow them all to smitherines. I wouldn't read too much into China's ambitions to aquire aircraft carriers just as I don't read too much into America's superiority because of her carrier task groups. Any country with adequate defenses would be able to knock them out.

Third, if things heated up between the US and China, Australia would be the "middle man" and attempt to sort out differences diplomatically because as I said Kevin Rudd is developing close relations with China while maintaining the close ANZUS alliance with the US. But while I think Australia would lean slightly towards America, Australia would by and large be neutral, or at least try to be. On top of this Australia would wield very little influence in a war because of the population size that you've mentioned, and the fact its military is only strong enough to counter its nearer neighbours like Indonesia, the Pacific island nations an so forth.

Fourth, considering a hypothetical world war war does happen, the US would need more than Canada, Britain and France to fight a war with a combined Sino-Russian alliance. China and Russia have friends in Africa, as they do with Iran and Syria in the Middle East. But a combined China/Russian alliance would dominate over the US alliance. America would need Japan and Germany to re-arm. Japan to curb Chinese influence in the Pacific and Germany/England/France to curb Russia's influence in Western Europe. The result of any world war would be catastrophic and a new world order would more than likely happen as the superpowers fighting any global war would use nuclear weapons on each other.



[edit on 26-2-2008 by Jbird]

I beg to differ on your point about America 'almost' being under martial law. I have seen no sign of it, and I've lived here 6 years now. I don't know where your getting your info from, but it's either tarnished or garnished.
England is a country. It is on the island called Britain. Also on Britain are Wales and Scotland. Next to it is Ireland, and in the north, is the piece of land that England controls. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are collectively called the United Kingdom. All lands are still controlled by English Parliament, but devolution now gives Wales and Scotland there own parliaments, which are ratified by the English parliament.
In the past, the British Commonwealth became 'The Commonwealth of Nations'. The criteria used to be that the country was once ruled by the British monarch, but this was dropped when it changed to Commonwealth of Nations, to the requirement that the nation recognises the British monarch as head of the CoN. Current members of the CoN include: (joining date in parenthesis)

Antigua and Barbuda (1981)
Australia (1931[1])
Bahamas (1973)
Bangladesh (1972)
Barbados (1966)
Belize (1981)
Botswana (1966)
Brunei (1984)
Cameroon (1995)
Canada (1931)
Cyprus (1961)
Dominica (1978)
Gambia (1965)
Ghana (1957)
Grenada (1974)
Guyana (1966)
India (1947)
Jamaica (1962)
Kenya (1963)
Kiribati (1979)
Lesotho (1966)
Malawi (1964)
Malaysia (1957)
Maldives (1982)
Malta (1964)
Mauritius (1968)
Mozambique (1995)
Namibia (1990)
Nauru (1968)[2]
New Zealand (1931[3])
Nigeria (1960[4])
Pakistan (1947[5])
Papua New Guinea (1975)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983)
Saint Lucia (1979)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979)
Samoa (1970)
Seychelles (1976)
Sierra Leone (1961)
Singapore (1965)
Solomon Islands (1978)
South Africa (1931[6])
Sri Lanka (1948)
Swaziland (1968)
Tanzania (1961)
Tonga (1970)
Trinidad and Tobago (1962)
Tuvalu (1978)
Uganda (1962)
United Kingdom (1931)
Vanuatu (1980)
Zambia (1964)

[edit on 25-2-2008 by cruzion]

I can garauntee that a US/British commonwealth/Western Europe alliance would knock 10 colors of crap out of any Rusky/Asia alliance. They know that, thats why they play it softly softly. As long as New Zealand is on our side, there's nothing to worry about. We need to clone Charles Upham.

No, I don't see this happening... Or do I? Keeping in mind the US has borrowed around half a trillion dollars from China for fighting the good fight in Iraq. America is just too bogged down to get into anymore fights..

www.reuters.com...

China attacking America? I don't think so, America is their biggest market. Imagine China not having a large, consumer-driven market like America not to buy their products anymore? It'd be economic suicide. There's no reason whatsoever for China attacking America, not for at least another 100 years.

As for Australia's role, I can easily see Australia bending over and taking whatever America gives us/tells us to do, just as always, and forever and ever.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by mattguy404]

reply to post by cruzion


i forgt about nz- hope nothimg happens to them they have huge trout for fly fishing
and i am still waiting on the teh drop bears is this really true or was my friend just #ing with me?

Originally posted by cruzion
I can garauntee that a US/British commonwealth/Western Europe alliance would knock 10 colors of crap out of any Rusky/Asia alliance. They know that, thats why they play it softly softly. As long as New Zealand is on our side, there's nothing to worry about. We need to clone Charles Upham.

Britain wields very little influence in the world anymore. The Commonweath is there only in name rather than a powerful entity. Britain's alliance with France and Germany in conjunction with the US will be the key to any future confrontation with Russia.

China's influence is growing, and the US will want Japan to re-arm and strengthen.

I wouldn't underestimate the strength of a China/Russia alliance. Both have heavy industry and can quickly churn out for its military. China has 5 times the population of America. Russia showed how tough they are during WW2. Russia is starting to tough talk now. I don't know where you got "softly/softly" from. Putin is saber-rattling. Both China and Russia are wealthy nations and getting wealthier.

America is heavily in debt. It's military is stretched and while not at breaking point yet, it isn't too far away. America will always have the edge in military technology, but Russia will continue to bridge the gap. America wouldn't be able to compete with Russia and China in terms of industrial output and manpower.

Australia would be best to avoid taking sides unless of course it takes a hit on its soil. And New Zealand has the weakest military on the planet. There's more sheep than a military budget in dollars and cents...

Russia wasn't tough! The Germans just ran out of bullets, then men! Let's not forget ze Germans were split anyway, with half at the Russian front, and half down watching Blighty. And true, Russia can churn out loads and loads of equipment...and second rate conscript troops to man it. As for US being borderline broke... they're still churning out billion dollar warmachines, and still pumping the $$$'s into R&D, so they can't be suffering that much. I mean look at their new class warships they are currently building - rail guns - networked drones - unmanned tanks, and god knows what is going on with the satellite technology.
And yes, China has trillions of...farmers.

reply to post by Vimes


Hello?

Have had repeated statements in direct conversations with folks in China I was convinced knew what they were talking about.

Their goal is to take over Australia.

As they put it--SO MUCH LAND--SO FEW PEOPLE--WE NEED THE LAND--IT IS OUR DESTINY. We will take it.

They anticipate desalting water and making the desert bloom etc. etc. etc.

So, are you saying that Aussies should just bend over and . . . .

play like good surrender monkeys--going to the mass graves singing Waltzing Matilda?

Hint . . . there aren't a lot of options!

reply to post by BO XIAN


Who are these folks in China ? Can you prove this ? Give us some evidence

reply to post by cruzion


umm yes russia is very tough- noone in history has ever successfully invaded them-killed napolean and aslo hiitler. plus they fight to the death like the japs did. the germans couldn't because hitler in his glory (but was an absolute moron) he decided to fight 2 fronts and after he signed the pact with stalin. if he hadn't done that the world may be a different place.

on alighter note how the hell do i get to put a signature on my post???

and still waiting for you aussies to give me an answer on the drop bears lmao- i don't believe it is true but i want to hear from someone who has 1st hand knowledge

reply to post by BO XIAN


Well, this is just more 'Reds-Under-The-Beds'. In case anyone hasn't noticed, it's the US/Commonwealth alliances that have been 'invading' places recently. You know.. War on terror. Not the 'war on Chinese commies looking for global domination'.

Mass graves? What the hell are you talking about?

Surrender monkeys? I think the French should be congratulated for not entering the absolute and bloody lie that is the Iraq war. That line has no premise here.

Originally posted by cruzion
Russia wasn't tough! The Germans just ran out of bullets, then men! Let's not forget ze Germans were split anyway, with half at the Russian front, and half down watching Blighty. And true, Russia can churn out loads and loads of equipment...and second rate conscript troops to man it. As for US being borderline broke... they're still churning out billion dollar warmachines, and still pumping the $$$'s into R&D, so they can't be suffering that much. I mean look at their new class warships they are currently building - rail guns - networked drones - unmanned tanks, and god knows what is going on with the satellite technology.
And yes, China has trillions of...farmers.

Russians were tough. They sacrificed more manpower than anybody else. A country like America even gets a fraction of those figures in losses and the population won't stand for it. China has the same attitude as Russia. The soldier is a cheap and expendable resource.

Stalin dug half a hole in the USSR's grave by culling all his best military men, the planners and generals. The USSR were trying to rebuild while Germany were on an all out attack. The USSR were lucky in a way as the winter hit the German forces hard, but also Germany couldn't touch the USSR's industrial complexes. Once Russia was able to replenish her army, Germany was doomed.

Yes, the US are still streets ahead but Russia is on a mission to catch up. Putin is hell bent on bridging the gap. They have the money, resources and infrastructure to do it too.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Vimes

 

Hello?

Have had repeated statements in direct conversations with folks in China I was convinced knew what they were talking about.

Their goal is to take over Australia.

As they put it--SO MUCH LAND--SO FEW PEOPLE--WE NEED THE LAND--IT IS OUR DESTINY. We will take it.

They anticipate desalting water and making the desert bloom etc. etc. etc.

So, are you saying that Aussies should just bend over and . . . .

play like good surrender monkeys--going to the mass graves singing Waltzing Matilda?

Hint . . . there aren't a lot of options!

That is rubbish. He's making it up. "Warmonger" talk. We all know China would have great difficulty in taking a small island like Taiwan, let alone a vast land like Australia.

It wasn't the Russians who defeated Napoleon and Hitler, it was the god awfull weather. The Russians were getting massacred left right and center, then winter stepped in. Even worse for the Germans, the winter got them, and then the Siberian troops turned up on the front lines. Didn't Russia lose more troops than the entire rest of the world combined? That says nothing about their skill, just how numerous they are.