War in Ukraine

[JohnOsbourne]

18 hours ago, Reggie29 said:

When did that happen? Our government questioned their motives but bullying? More bullshit reporting.

Also, Australia and the UK were fighting Japan and Germany for that matter long before Pearl Harbour. According to American teaching (and history), the US fought the war by themselves. At least that's the perception.

They did stop the war against Japan however, by dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now that's bullying.

Fighting and losing.  America bailed out the entire world in WW2.  I am no Team America meat-head, but it is beyond obvious that without massive American aid (in both world wars) Britain would have had to make terms with Germany and the Soviet Union would have fallen.  

The point about the Solomon Islands is that Australia thought something going on far from its borders was a national security matter, yet when Russia does something literally on their border it's the end of the fucking world.  Beyond moronic double-standard.  

[Reggie29]

5 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Fighting and losing.  America bailed out the entire world in WW2.  I am no Team America meat-head, but it is beyond obvious that without massive American aid (in both world wars) Britain would have had to make terms with Germany and the Soviet Union would have fallen.  

The point about the Solomon Islands is that Australia thought something going on far from its borders was a national security matter, yet when Russia does something literally on their border it's the end of the fucking world.  Beyond moronic double-standard.  

Australia and Britain without any US involvement stopped Rommel's Panzer Corps at Tobruk in North Africa and the Japanese in Kokoda, New Guinea with minimal US assistance. Not exactly losing.

Bailed out the whole world? Dream on. Assisted in winning the war yes and that was all, no more and no less.

It is a national security matter if China were to establish military bases in, The Solomons, not only for Australia but a threat to all Pacific nations. China is interested in Papua / New Guinea too. Btw, The Solomons aren't that far away from US territories either.

 

[redrum]

2 hours ago, Reggie29 said:

Australia and Britain without any US involvement stopped Rommel's Panzer Corps at Tobruk in North Africa and the Japanese in Kokoda, New Guinea with minimal US assistance. Not exactly losing.

Bailed out the whole world? Dream on. Assisted in winning the war yes and that was all, no more and no less.

It is a national security matter if China were to establish military bases in, The Solomons, not only for Australia but a threat to all Pacific nations. China is interested in Papua / New Guinea too. Btw, The Solomons aren't that far away from US territories either.

 

I thought the Aussies loved the Marines after they kicked the hell out of the Japs on Guadalcanal? 

 

[SteveAJones]

9 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Fighting and losing.  America bailed out the entire world in WW2.  I am no Team America meat-head, but it is beyond obvious that without massive American aid (in both world wars) Britain would have had to make terms with Germany and the Soviet Union would have fallen.  

We can only speculate, but it seems to me the UK and Russia would have ultimately prevailed regardless. The Battle of Britain was a decisive turning point in the UK's war with Germany. The Battle of Stalingrad was a catastrophic setback for Germany in their war with Russia.   

[JohnOsbourne]

14 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

We can only speculate, but it seems to me the UK and Russia would have ultimately prevailed regardless. The Battle of Britain was a decisive turning point in the UK's war with Germany. The Battle of Stalingrad was a catastrophic setback for Germany in their war with Russia.   

I don't think the Germans ever had any serious plans to invade Britain.  Hitler was an admirer of the British Empire and (like Putin today, ironically) never really grasped how badly the Anglo-Americans wanted him gone.  The record of British subversion and intelligence operations in the US to sway opinion towards interventionism and to join the war speaks a lot about their desperate state. There is no way they could have defeated Germany alone.

Lend Lease kept the Soviets in the war in 1941, and continued aid made them more mobile and effective in 1942, which was fully demonstrated at Stalingrad.  Without US support (which was given on far more lenient terms than Britain received), the Soviets would have lost the war.

[JohnOsbourne]

17 hours ago, Reggie29 said:

Australia and Britain without any US involvement stopped Rommel's Panzer Corps at Tobruk in North Africa and the Japanese in Kokoda, New Guinea with minimal US assistance. Not exactly losing.

Bailed out the whole world? Dream on. Assisted in winning the war yes and that was all, no more and no less.

It is a national security matter if China were to establish military bases in, The Solomons, not only for Australia but a threat to all Pacific nations. China is interested in Papua / New Guinea too. Btw, The Solomons aren't that far away from US territories either.

 

US aid was critical to the British war effort, and the need to keep it flowing is why the British conducted spying operations in the US to manipulate public opinion towards active support of Britain.  Without American aid Britain would have been forced to make peace with Germany.

[redrum]

6 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

US aid was critical to the British war effort, and the need to keep it flowing is why the British conducted spying operations in the US to manipulate public opinion towards active support of Britain.  Without American aid Britain would have been forced to make peace with Germany.

Don't forget all the private firearms that were donated from the US to Britain. If it ever happened again the gun controllers would scream bloody murder. 

[Brigante]

I studied with Professor Sir Ian Kershaw, author of The Nazis: A Warning From History, and he had no doubt that Hitler seriously intended to invade the UK. The Battle of Britain was an attempt to destroy British air cover ahead of a 'surrender or be invaded' ultimatum. Hitler did see the British in a different way to other Europeans and he would've preferred a negotiated surrender and the installation of a puppet govt, but he was quite prepared to achieve that by force. He was used to dealing with the likes of Chamberlain, though, so he seriously under-estimated Churchill.
Even if the Battle of Britain had gone the other way, I really doubt that Churchill would've sought terms. He was a belligerent old sod who'd physically fought in several wars and believed that the answer to violence is greater violence - he'd wanted to bomb the Irish 'rebels' and wanted the army to shoot striking Yorkshire miners, after all! I suspect that Churchill would far rather have been invaded and gone down fighting , rather than surrender. It's possible that he could've been removed by a coup of appeasers if the Nazis had actually invaded (the British aristocracy was riddled with Nazi sympathisers!) , but he was fairly entrenched, had the military on side and wouldn't have gone quietly. I'm from a Yorkshire mining family, so I can't stand the bloke, but we're lucky he was PM during the war. 
Regarding US support, Churchill sought American support for a long time. If Churchill himself thought that the UK needed America to beat the Nazis, I'd say there was a good chance that we did. He was in more of a position to know than anybody else, I guess. And the Nazis had already kicked our arses out of Europe in 1940, after all!    

Edited January 13, 2023 by Brigante

[redrum]

 

[SteveAJones]

On 1/13/2023 at 11:03 AM, Brigante said:

I studied with Professor Sir Ian Kershaw, author of The Nazis: A Warning From History, and he had no doubt that Hitler seriously intended to invade the UK. The Battle of Britain was an attempt to destroy British air cover ahead of a 'surrender or be invaded' ultimatum. Hitler did see the British in a different way to other Europeans and he would've preferred a negotiated surrender and the installation of a puppet govt, but he was quite prepared to achieve that by force. He was used to dealing with the likes of Chamberlain, though, so he seriously under-estimated Churchill.

Fair enough.

On 16 July 1940 Hitler issued Fuhrer Directive No. 16, setting in motion preparations for a landing in Britain. He prefaced the order by stating: "As England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, still shows no signs of willingness to come to terms, I have decided to prepare, and if necessary to carry out, a landing operation against her. The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English Motherland as a base from which the war against Germany can be continued, and, if necessary, to occupy the country completely." The code name for the invasion was Seelöwe, "Sea Lion".

[JohnOsbourne]

[JohnOsbourne]

Australia = America's bitch

 

[SteveAJones]

14 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Australia = America's bitch

 

No one twisted Australia's arm to buy US subs. IMHO, I think it's money misspent unless Australia continues to upgrade its missile defense systems at the same time.

[Reggie29]

19 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Australia = America's bitch

 

You wish.

The US needs Australia as much as Australia needs the US. Strategically we need each other.

We'll own and crew them. Three will be purchased by early next decade from the US and two from the UK. Technology is what we're really paying for, eight will eventually be built in South Australia. 

From 2027, US and UK submarines will be rotating through Western Australia. HMAS Stirling is undergoing an upgrade to accommodate them.

Where do you get your misinformation from?

Unfortunately, China has forced the issue and we have to be able to defend our country if and when needs be, besides we should be happy it's creating employment for all three countries.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Reggie29

[Reggie29]

4 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

No one twisted Australia's arm to buy US subs. IMHO, I think it's money misspent unless Australia continues to upgrade its missile defense systems at the same time.

FYI. We are doing just that in buying Tomahawk missiles among other defence options.

[JohnOsbourne]

14 hours ago, Reggie29 said:

You wish.

The US needs Australia as much as Australia needs the US. Strategically we need each other.

We'll own and crew them. Three will be purchased by early next decade from the US and two from the UK. Technology is what we're really paying for, eight will eventually be built in South Australia. 

From 2027, US and UK submarines will be rotating through Western Australia. HMAS Stirling is undergoing an upgrade to accommodate them.

Where do you get your misinformation from?

Unfortunately, China has forced the issue and we have to be able to defend our country if and when needs be, besides we should be happy it's creating employment for all three countries.

Why, I get it from the ex-PM:

Paul Keating labels Aukus submarine pact ‘worst deal in all history’ in attack on Albanese government | Australian politics | The Guardian

The US isn't even done losing to Russia in the Ukraine, and they're already trying to start a war with China.  I guess with the mother of all financial crises brewing, they need to go full retard.  Speaking of which, pretty pathetic that Aussies are just as willing to be cannon fodder for the US Empire as the Ukro-nazis.  Well done, mate!

[hummingbird69]

30 minutes ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Why, I get it from the ex-PM:

Paul Keating labels Aukus submarine pact ‘worst deal in all history’ in attack on Albanese government | Australian politics | The Guardian

The US isn't even done losing to Russia in the Ukraine, and they're already trying to start a war with China.  I guess with the mother of all financial crises brewing, they need to go full retard.  Speaking of which, pretty pathetic that Aussies are just as willing to be cannon fodder for the US Empire as the Ukro-nazis.  Well done, mate!

But But trump

[rm2551]

On 3/20/2023 at 3:17 PM, SteveAJones said:

No one twisted Australia's arm to buy US subs. IMHO, I think it's money misspent unless Australia continues to upgrade its missile defense systems at the same time.

I'd say it is long overdue that we have started to realise we need to upgrade our military. We cannot remain a "small" power and we can't be a middle power without a serious re-evaluation of our defence capabilities. As Reggie29 says, we are buying tomahawks from the US as well. Hopefully that is only the start of updating ourselves.

[Reggie29]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:59 AM, JohnOsbourne said:

Why, I get it from the ex-PM:

Paul Keating labels Aukus submarine pact ‘worst deal in all history’ in attack on Albanese government | Australian politics | The Guardian

The US isn't even done losing to Russia in the Ukraine, and they're already trying to start a war with China.  I guess with the mother of all financial crises brewing, they need to go full retard.  Speaking of which, pretty pathetic that Aussies are just as willing to be cannon fodder for the US Empire as the Ukro-nazis.  Well done, mate!

Keating and under his leadership he raised home loan interest rates to 18% which caused a lot of grief to the Australian people plus, he is a coward and kow-towed to the Chinese to the point of becoming an oriental stooge, so he has about as much credibility as you do.

In short, he is a FUCKWIT.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Reggie29

[JohnOsbourne]

These are your choices:

 

[SteveAJones]

3 hours ago, JohnOsbourne said:

AMERICA NOW

AMERICA THEN

 

[hummingbird69]

These woke dopes should be fired immediately!  Along with milley and austin.  I can hear it now,  "Charge!!"   "oh and make sure you use the correct pronouns before you kill them."

[SteveAJones]

1 hour ago, hummingbird69 said:

These woke dopes should be fired immediately!  Along with milley and austin.  I can hear it now,  "Charge!!"   "oh and make sure you use the correct pronouns before you kill them."

All are the inevitable byproducts of 50 years of failed progressive policies masquerading as "civil rights", "equal opportunity" and more recently "diversity, equity and inclusion". Never underestimate New America's capacity to allow wholly incompetent people to fail upwards not only in politics but in every sector.

Seriously, the moon landing mission photos should be prominently displayed in every public space as a tangible reminder of how far we have fallen since then. 50 years ago we could put people on the moon and return them safely to Earth. Nowadays, I can't find someone qualified to repair a pocket door or configure a laptop. These Gen Z college grads can't find their own ass with both hands but are convinced they deserve $15.00 an hour if not a guaranteed universal basic income and reparations. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by SteveAJones

[Rodrigo]

On 3/22/2023 at 11:04 PM, JohnOsbourne said:

A man who represents health in the USA thinks he's a woman and is overweight. Sounds very logical in this world dystopia.

[hummingbird69]

3 hours ago, Rodrigo said:

A man who represents health in the USA thinks he's a woman and is overweight. Sounds very logical in this world dystopia.

It's the height of absurdity.  We have literal science deniers telling us how "WE" are the ones denying science.