Jump to content

US Marines to be Stationed in Australia


Fist 666

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

not your fault.. but i will drink me some pints.. but i think its a fat chance that it will happen, i did more reading on it and they want me to fly myself to england for a interview on our own expense. If it was more than just an interview i would consider it but flying there to only be told no possibly is kinda crazy.. but who knows, guess i will wait for an email back..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, army but I got out in 2000 so it's been a while.

 

I don't get why they would want you to fly to England for an interview, that seems weird as hell. You'd think that they would have points of contact in US, England, France, Canada, NZ and a few other places. I don't get it.

 

Aussie diggers are among the highest paid in the world, not a bad gig, mate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi gang. It's been a while… Wasn't this fun when it was still a thing?! It is still.

 

So these guys arrived a couple of weeks ago and it looked pretty fancy. Welcome, friends. I have a question to anyone that might know stuff about war. So, Obama sent some American troops here (for whatever reason) and we're all ok with that (because we don't have a choice).

What if government changes in America and the Republicans come to power. Does the military agenda vary much between political parties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently not. We're still in Afghanistan, but my guess is our "mission" there at this point has very little to do with the Taliban.

 

Think about it....the same thing happened in SE Asia during the Cold War. We went in there with the intention of making democracy (heh) stick, without considering some home truths-

 

-Democracy was never really an option there- small fiefdoms, large kingdoms, colonialism, communism...they all worked because they aren't exactly geared around participatory governance.

 

-That's not to say that nobody wanted democracy, but you're talking about a select, educated few that could grasp the concept.

 

-And since most people just want things to work with a minimum of disruption, and will gladly abdicate a measure of their rights and freedom for it, democracy was not only a hard sell....it was almost completely incomprehensible.

 

I think it's really about controlling the drug trade. You can't eradicate it but if you hang out where it's happening you can make money off of it. It worked in Laos, why not Afghanistan?

 

So to answer your question- no, they both like money and since there's the potential to make a killing there (pun acknowledged) I think they see it as a good business move. There's no way we can "win" a war there...we're dealing with the same region that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, they're more than willing to do business with us so we probably aren't going to leave short of being forced to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been the most partisanship and sophomoric towel snapping in politics than there has ever been, but when it comes to military they're a separate entity from politicians. There's a reason why California has a lot of military offices, and its because historically the military likes to make decisions as far away from DC as possible. Congress might pass laws and budgets but military strategy and "foreign affairs" are all up to the pentagon (who has their own lobbyists and things.)

 

I don't think we'll declare war on china simply because we're spread too thin like Rome was at the end of their empire. A lot of republicans wanted a smaller military budget than what was given to them this year. So my guess (and I'm not christo-f) is that it wont happen in the next 4 years at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(because we don't have a choice).

What if government changes in America and the Republicans come to power. Does the military agenda vary much between political parties?

 

Why do you think Australia doesn't have a choice?

 

 

 

 

Apparently not. We're still in Afghanistan, but my guess is our "mission" there at this point has very little to do with the Taliban.

 

Think about it....the same thing happened in SE Asia during the Cold War. We went in there with the intention of making democracy (heh) stick, without considering some home truths-

 

-Democracy was never really an option there- small fiefdoms, large kingdoms, colonialism, communism...they all worked because they aren't exactly geared around participatory governance.

 

-That's not to say that nobody wanted democracy, but you're talking about a select, educated few that could grasp the concept.

 

-And since most people just want things to work with a minimum of disruption, and will gladly abdicate a measure of their rights and freedom for it, democracy was not only a hard sell....it was almost completely incomprehensible.

 

I think you have to look past the rhetoric on the democracy thing, whilst nice to be able to create a system in the world after your own values I doubt that the policy makers are actually that naive. In Vietnam it didn't matter what became of that country as long as the spread of communism was halted and the US showed a commitment to the world that it was prepared to put its money where it's mouth was and spend money and blood. Without that demonstrated commitment countries like Indonesia, Australia, Greece, Israel, Egypt, etc. would always have to consider that the US wouldn't come to their aid should the USSR/China come at them with force (be it openly or through a revolutionary proxy).

 

That's what they did in Vietnam, stalled the commies, created instability in the region rather than let it consolidate and showed the world that it's willing to do what it takes. It's a similar situation in Afghanistan, I don't think anyone is that naive to think they can just plant democracy into what is probably the most unreceptive country in the world. The US has to ensure an environment that denies global jihadists and operating base, first and foremost. Second, the US has to set up a balance of power in the region. The last thing the US wants is power to consolidate in the region and push out in to the Indian Ocean with overwhelming naval power. Have a look on this map how busy the shipping is past India and where it is coming from (energy energy energy!). The last thing the US wants is a navy in the Indian Ocean that is stronger than the US navy, and that could be the Indians.

 

India is a traditional land power, it's conflicts are with its neighbours Pakistan and China. That means that Indian money is spent on guns, tanks, fortification, land transport, missiles, etc. Should India free itself from that land focus it will be free to spend that money on naval forces (plus the only logical expansion for India is seaward). If India can get it's shit together it has potential similar to that of China, large and cheap labor base. It's just that India has shithouse transport infrastructure and the bulk of the population does not live on the coast. Should India be able to consolidate forces in Afghanistan it will have Pakistan's back forcing Islamabad to split its efforts, taking some heat away from India and it will also reduce the Islamist proxy forces Pakistan can deploy against India (not to mention take away Paki strategic depth, etc, etc.). This is Pakistan is so intent on not allowing Indian participation in Afghanistan to any serious degree.

 

So the US wants to allow India to grow as this will balance against Chinese expansion in to South East Asia and the Indian Ocean but the US doesn't want India to grow beyond US control. This is the regional balance it has to work out before it can leave the region. Deny the jihadists an operating base and leave in place a regional power balance that supports the US interests. And hey, if they can sprinkle a little democratic fairy dust along the way, all well and good!!

 

 

 

 

There has been the most partisanship and sophomoric towel whipping in politics than ever before, but when it comes to military they're a separate entity from politicians. There's a reason why California has a lot of military offices, and its because the military likes to make decisions as far away from DC as possible. Congress might pass laws and budgets but that's all up to the pentagon has their own lobbyists and is on their own for most part.

 

I don't think we'll declare war on china simply because we're spread too thin like Rome was at the end of that empire. A lot of republicans wanted a smaller military budget than what was given to them this year. So my guess (and I'm not christo-f) is that it wont happen in the next 4 years at least.

 

The last thing US wants is war with China not only because it needs a rest after Iraq/Afghanistan (in terms of economics, posture restructure, morale, etc.) but because the Chinese economy is good for US interests. The US agenda is to have an economically successful China but for Beijing to act within the US system of play. That means grow your economy, allow the US access to your market, don't make what the US makes cheaper than the US makes it and don't spend too much money on your military....., or design any ground breaking tech in energy, info, space, etc.

 

War in the Pacific would be damaging to the US. It will gain more out of making China the boogy man and attracting weaker regional countries in to the US sphere for protection and then using that power to shape China's behaviour to suit US purposes. Take Myanmar for instance, great lever to shape Chinese behaviour. Same with Vietnam and the fear in ASEAN right now against the way China is acting with its military in its maritime environment. The US has gained greater access to Australia, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam thanks to Chinese aggression. Things are working fairly well for the US at the moment thanks to Chinese belligerence in the oceans.

 

 

 

 

Personally I don't give a shit how all this pans out, I just like to see it how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. The US benefits from China being the boogy man and right now China is doing all the heavy lifting in that department by being belligerent on the South China Seas and with Japan on Senkaku. The US doesn't have to make anything up. It's a very natural response for the ASEAN/Oceania nations to look towards the US as a security provider. China is is attempting to create a region of exclusive influence inside the 1st island chain and building the military kit to make it happen. Nobody wants to lose independence and the US system is the next best thing to being independent. China has so far shown little intention to offer the region the same benefits the US offers as a regional security provider, hence the balancing behaviour from ASEAN, Japan, ROK and Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think Australia doesn't have a choice?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you have to look past the rhetoric on the democracy thing, whilst nice to be able to create a system in the world after your own values I doubt that the policy makers are actually that naive. In Vietnam it didn't matter what became of that country as long as the spread of communism was halted and the US showed a commitment to the world that it was prepared to put its money where it's mouth was and spend money and blood. Without that demonstrated commitment countries like Indonesia, Australia, Greece, Israel, Egypt, etc. would always have to consider that the US wouldn't come to their aid should the USSR/China come at them with force (be it openly or through a revolutionary proxy).

 

That's what they did in Vietnam, stalled the commies, created instability in the region rather than let it consolidate and showed the world that it's willing to do what it takes. It's a similar situation in Afghanistan, I don't think anyone is that naive to think they can just plant democracy into what is probably the most unreceptive country in the world. The US has to ensure an environment that denies global jihadists and operating base, first and foremost. Second, the US has to set up a balance of power in the region. The last thing the US wants is power to consolidate in the region and push out in to the Indian Ocean with overwhelming naval power. Have a look on this map how busy the shipping is past India and where it is coming from (energy energy energy!). The last thing the US wants is a navy in the Indian Ocean that is stronger than the US navy, and that could be the Indians.

 

India is a traditional land power, it's conflicts are with its neighbours Pakistan and China. That means that Indian money is spent on guns, tanks, fortification, land transport, missiles, etc. Should India free itself from that land focus it will be free to spend that money on naval forces (plus the only logical expansion for India is seaward). If India can get it's shit together it has potential similar to that of China, large and cheap labor base. It's just that India has shithouse transport infrastructure and the bulk of the population does not live on the coast. Should India be able to consolidate forces in Afghanistan it will have Pakistan's back forcing Islamabad to split its efforts, taking some heat away from India and it will also reduce the Islamist proxy forces Pakistan can deploy against India (not to mention take away Paki strategic depth, etc, etc.). This is Pakistan is so intent on not allowing Indian participation in Afghanistan to any serious degree.

 

So the US wants to allow India to grow as this will balance against Chinese expansion in to South East Asia and the Indian Ocean but the US doesn't want India to grow beyond US control. This is the regional balance it has to work out before it can leave the region. Deny the jihadists an operating base and leave in place a regional power balance that supports the US interests. And hey, if they can sprinkle a little democratic fairy dust along the way, all well and good!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last thing US wants is war with China not only because it needs a rest after Iraq/Afghanistan (in terms of economics, posture restructure, morale, etc.) but because the Chinese economy is good for US interests. The US agenda is to have an economically successful China but for Beijing to act within the US system of play. That means grow your economy, allow the US access to your market, don't make what the US makes cheaper than the US makes it and don't spend too much money on your military....., or design any ground breaking tech in energy, info, space, etc.

 

War in the Pacific would be damaging to the US. It will gain more out of making China the boogy man and attracting weaker regional countries in to the US sphere for protection and then using that power to shape China's behaviour to suit US purposes. Take Myanmar for instance, great lever to shape Chinese behaviour. Same with Vietnam and the fear in ASEAN right now against the way China is acting with its military in its maritime environment. The US has gained greater access to Australia, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam thanks to Chinese aggression. Things are working fairly well for the US at the moment thanks to Chinese belligerence in the oceans.

 

 

 

 

Personally I don't give a shit how all this pans out, I just like to see it how it is.

 

 

 

I dont think there will be war in the Pacific... Just kinda figuring out if a new (republican) govt in the states would have any more motivation than the current one to deploy troops from here to go fight somewhere. That would be damaging to Australia and its power in the Pacific, I think.

 

I really have always wondered (even with the information that is fed to us about the USA's motives behind war in Vietnam) what their *actual* motivation was.. I've never really understood the Vietnam war and I dont know why America hates communists so much. Good read, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can't really say whether a Rep. White House will be more belligerent than a Dem White House. Russia certainly prefers to work with the Dems at the moment rather than the Reps. Whether that implies that Moscow thinks the Dems are a weaker competitor or that the Reps are belligerent I don't know.

 

The thing to remember is that the US doesn't create reality. regardless of a Rep or Dem president Iran will continue with nuclear enrichment, the Russians will continue with regional consolidation and China will continue with creating an East Asian sphere of influence. The president might change but the constraints that s/he must work within remain constant. Character only matters within the limited range of rational choices the president is faced with.

 

 

The counter argument to this theory is George Bush Jr. I don't have any explanation as to what happened there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boeing Super Hornet Chief Test Pilot gives Flightglobal a tour at Aero India ...

 

 

Last shipboard deployment I went on we trotted out the super hornet for India and the Aussies. The Aussies have already purchased it, and I was around when the first Aussie pilots and maintainers showed up to start the transition from the F-111 aardvark.

There are features on this demo jet that we don't even have on our frontline super hornets. IE: conformal fuel tanks, laser detection equipment, external stealth weapons pods and the EPE motors, although I doubt the international sales version will have AESA, JHMCS, ATFLIR or JTIDS. The US doesn't have a history of selling this kind of hardware lightly, factor that in to all the joint training (India and AUS) and it's easy to see that the US is trying to establish a stronger/larger sphere of influence in the WESTPAC/IO regions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know why America hates communists so much.

 

I was interested by this comment in particular as there is a huge amount of value in asking this question. I also wish I could give a more confident and comprehensive answer as well, but I will spell out my thoughts as they stand now.

 

 

The most immediate perspective would have to be that of competing interests. A nation that has the aggregate resources to promote its interest throughout a region and beyond is of course going to attempt to do so. This is obviously seen in the history of empire from Europe with England, , Russia etc., Mid East with Assyria, Persia, Babylonia, etc., Asia with the Han, Mongols, Japan, etc., and today with Pax Americana. It seems to be the structure and behaviour of people and nations, as history would have us believe.

 

From the perspective of empire and national power the US opposition to communism could be seen as competition of the Russian versus the American empire. Both nations had the aggregate resources to promote its interests outside of its own borders and region and were successful in doing so. As they grow there interests come in to contact with the interests of other empires and are seen to be divergent and irreconcilable. That results in competition, which part of a successful national strategy is the demonisation of the oppostion (cue Joh Howard talking about Saddam Hussein's baby shredding machines). Both sides of the Cold War had significant propaganda programs aimed at framing the public opinion of the opposing side in order to create support for national policy.

 

 

The second perspective would be economic and social opposition to policy. Communist/Socialist/Marxist economic policies and principals are in direct opposition to free market/capitalist/Adam Smith policies and principals. They cannot exist together and barely along side of each other. That would mean competition is inevitable when these two economic foundations rely on global proliferation for real success.

 

Likewise the politico-social aspects of the two concepts are at direct odds. One promotes consolidated central control of all public interaction that has a relationship to the function of the nation. The other promotes small government and market forces. On the social side of things the centralised control seemed to seep in to control of values as well, maybe more so in China than Russia but a centralised state has difficulty in allowing plurality of opinion. Firstly as it does not wish to legitimise the behaviour of contesting norms given that a one party system relies on simple acceptance. Secondly a centralised state does not wish to see the genesis of thought that may challenge the dominant ideology as they ideology is what gives them power. The small govt of the capitalist-liberal states (are supposed to) emphasise liberty outside of property rights and personal/national security. The situation here blues as to the conceptualisation of national security but that is a whole other discussion in itself. Peoples on either side of the divide had reason to support one economic/social ideology over the other and even to feel threatened by the other.

 

 

 

Finally and most simply many people on either side stood to gain personally and professionally out of the competition and thus encouraged fear. Joe McCarthy might be a working example from the side of the US. I don't know enough to give a Soviet example.

 

 

Interested to hear opposing views to this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youuuure kindof missing the gutteral reaction Americans had to Stalin. He was an incredible cunt with no value for life. Americans got a man into space because we spent time and effort in designing the best space ship we could. Russia got a man into space by sending hundreds of dogs, monkeys and astronauts to their death, and eventually one lived. Thats one of Stalin's contributions to astronomy, the ring of dead dogs stuck in orbit around earth. I think it's fair to say before Stalin there were no dead dogs orbiting earth, and now there are.

 

You see how Russia tried to take over Afghanistan, how they took over the Eastern Bloc, how their legacy of not-giving-any-fucks-for-human-life continues in China. And from an economic standpoint its an inefficient system. It wasnt until China adopted state capitalism that they rose out of poverty. Communism is an oppressive bunch of bullshit... and what's scary is that Russia is Dmitry Medvedev

is getting nostalgic for the old commie days. I think Russia is always gonna stick to what they know, sacrificing lives for the motherland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youuuure kindof missing the gutteral reaction Americans had to Stalin. He was an incredible cunt with no value for life. Americans got a man into space because we spent time and effort in designing the best space ship we could. Russia got a man into space by sending hundreds of dogs, monkeys and astronauts to their death, and eventually one lived. Thats one of Stalin's contributions to astronomy, the ring of dead dogs stuck in orbit around earth. I think it's fair to say before Stalin there were no dead dogs orbiting earth, and now there are.

 

You see how Russia tried to take over Afghanistan, how they took over the Eastern Bloc, how their legacy of not-giving-any-fucks-for-human-life continues in China. And from an economic standpoint its an inefficient system. It wasnt until China adopted state capitalism that they rose out of poverty. Communism is an oppressive bunch of bullshit... and what's scary is that Russia is Dmitry Medvedev

is getting nostalgic for the old commie days. I think Russia is always gonna stick to what they know, sacrificing lives for the motherland.

 

Yeah I see what you're saying and it has a lot of truth to it but authoritarianism and brutality are not traits unique to communism, that's just the kind of bastardry that you find in Uganda under Idi Amin, Romania with Nicolai Caeusescu, pre-communist China (think under rulers such as Ci Xi going all the way back to Qin shihuang) DPRK with the Kims, Iran under the Ayatollahs, etc.

 

You're definitely right that the revolution and behaviour of the commie leaders in the USSR was part of the reason why communism became the boogy man, no doubt about that. I felt this was kind of addressed in the sentences pasted below:

 

 

On the social side of things the centralised control seemed to seep in to control of values as well, maybe more so in China than Russia but a centralised state has difficulty in allowing plurality of opinion. Firstly as it does not wish to legitimise the behaviour of contesting norms given that a one party system relies on simple acceptance. Secondly a centralised state does not wish to see the genesis of thought that may challenge the dominant ideology as they ideology is what gives them power. The small govt of the capitalist-liberal states (are supposed to) emphasise liberty outside of property rights and personal/national security. The situation here blurs as to the conceptualisation of national security but that is a whole other discussion in itself. Peoples on either side of the divide had reason to support one economic/social ideology over the other and even to feel threatened by the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans got a man into space because we spent time and effort to snatch up nazi scientists at the end of WWII so they could design the best space ships and aircraft for us in exchange for full protection from prosecution. Russia got the short end of the nazi brain trust gold rush so they got a man into space by sending hundreds of dogs, monkeys and astronauts to their death, and eventually one lived.

 

If we are gonna go there let's not sugar coat it... I'm just saying. I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment just the particulars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another spin you can put on that is America took a hundred or so scientists from Nazi Germany, exchanged their jail time for migrant labor, for the end goal of finally ending the war and keeping Americans and allies safe. We weren't jettisoning jews into orbit while they were in America.

 

plus my point was more about scary soviet russia sending dead astronauts into space to scare the world into thinking they had an advanced space program, capable of launching their actually enormous cache of nukes from anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...