Neck & Neck In Oz & USA

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Strangely enough..( well for some of us ) Australia has fought along side America & quasi-democratic American causes than it has fought alongside good olde mother England. ( Primarily....2 with England & 4 with the USA )



    Ironically, we have less US troops in Australia than in almost any other country...

    But I really doubt it having a hundred times more US troops in Oz will make us a "bigger target " than we already are..

    I am no lover of the Quasi-Indonesian police state, but I sure as hell wouldn't like to see Indonesia start to unravel in a political & economic sense..It would be a harbinger of frightening proportions.

    Can you image a country approximating the size & population of USA coming undone..or falling to warring islamic fundamentalist / tribal fracticide..some of the arguments go very very deep in Indonesia...Aceh does not auger well for Indonesia...
  • Reply 42 of 59
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    the head:



    Quote:

    I can see you thinking, how can anybody be that smart, and NOT belong to the conservative right? How, even, can anybody be smarter than most people I know belonging to the conservative right. Am I right or am I right?



    I find it odd that you claim to be a leading intellectual but rely so heavily on stereotype. Interesting that.



    As far as me being conservative right...

    Didn't vote for Bush), didn't vote for Rick Perry as governor, no conservative right as federal senators.



    I've voted for one Republican in a major office in my life, State Controller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and only then because I know her personally and she's a fantastic lady.



    So you're neither right nor right, you're wrong.



    Quote:

    Now you're forgetting I'm not Ena. I do no plan on squirming. I have a hard time dodging all the harshness thrown at my face, but, to be fair, I DID call for it.



    Actually you're acting now like you called for it to cover how silly your assertions and stereotypes are.



    You'd rather be a sub-par troll than a simpleton. And a sub-par troll you are.
  • Reply 43 of 59
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    the head:





    Actually you're acting now like you called for it to cover how silly your assertions and stereotypes are.



    You'd rather be a sub-par troll than a simpleton. And a sub-par troll you are.




    LOVE IT WHEN MODS & SENIORS USE OTHER PEOPLES THREADS TO SLANG BANG AT EACH OTHER>>>>

    I FEEL LIKE BANGING HEADS RIGHT NOW...!!!!

    & TO THINK I AM RISKING BEING BANNED BECAUSE I HAVE SPOKEN MY MIND IN THE SUGGESTIONS BAR>>>

    BUT YOU GUYS GO AHEAD>>LIKE TWO OLDE DINOSAURS>>I'M JUST A FRIGGIN MOUSE>>>IN MY OWN THREAD ARRRRRRGHHHHH.



    NO DOUBT A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF TOLERANT, RELEVANT & INFORMED DIALOGUE BOTH LEFT & RIGHT SHEEEE____I T !!!!!!

  • Reply 44 of 59
    Quote:

    Still, I'd like to see you do some fieldwork around Europe, and ask them, straight off the bat, when that civil war took place (1860-1865), who was in charge then (Lincoln), who it was fought between (north -yankees- vs. south -confederates-) what klansmen are, what trailer trash is... What supremacists are. Then repeat that. I'm willing to take a test on my knowledge. I'm thinking I'd beat plenty of youns, not to mention most Europeans.



    Interesting choice for your start date for the civil war. Can you elaborate on why you chose 1860 rather than the more commonly accepted 1861 which is when the actual War started? Also can you elaborate on your rationale for choosing 1860 as the start date and yet listing only Lincoln as in charge rather than both Lincoln and Buchanan or perhaps Lincoln and Buchanon/Davis even though Abe didn't take the oath of office so as to be in charge until what, March 1961?



    Quote:

    Well, the civil war made clear that there are two parts in the US. That is some time ago though, but you still wouldn't call an Alabaman or a Texan a Yank. What DO you call them though? Klansmen maybe. Or confederalists, or something like that. Rednecks? Trailer trash, to refer to that other thread. You see, I was mainly looking for a qualifier to describe southern Americans as opposed to northern ones, and, possibly, at the same time, slip in some of the stereotyping that is going on in the world about the US south. Mainly looking to stir the ire of some southern supremacists around here. Ah well.



    Also your statement only recognizes klansmen and Yanks. Why are you excluding minorities who live in the South like Hispanics and African-Americans? Because they are not worthy of your time? So then you are admitting that you are a racist and a xenophobe and a klansman yourself. Why must you hate people of color? I find your sort of hatemongering disgusting. And some people say the 3/5ths clause of the constitution is reprehensible and yet here we have people 200+ years later advocating that those people count for 0/5ths. For shame der kopf.
  • Reply 45 of 59
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    Google was not his friend.







    Yo', Head. do some BASIC research next time. and if the Civil War resource you find is titled



    "All Southerners are a bunch of redneck, racist klansman", move on to the next resource.
  • Reply 46 of 59
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I've voted for one Republican in a major office in my life, State Controller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and only then because I know her personally and she's a fantastic lady.



    Well, of course, that should not surprise me nor you, seeing you're barely old enough to vote.



    Quote:

    Actually you're acting now like you called for it to cover how silly your assertions and stereotypes are.



    Exactly. Now we're talking, groverat. The day you start understanding the sublime tactics I'm using in my struggle to incite a leftist revolution in the AppleOutsider forum is the day I'll grant you the right to call yourself a disciple of the Kop, albeit still a junior one.



    Quote:

    You'd rather be a sub-par troll than a simpleton. And a sub-par troll you are.



    What can I say? I guess a sub-par troll would have gotten this thread closed a long time ago. I'm more like the Jedi master of all trolls. Or something. [forgive me if I use that terminology wrong, I'm not that much into Star Wars]
  • Reply 47 of 59
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Also your statement only recognizes klansmen and Yanks. Why are you excluding minorities who live in the South like Hispanics and African-Americans?



    The flaw in your reasoning: I'm not excluding minorities as much as I'm excluding MAJORITIES (as many here pointed out - I've read estimates of 99% NOT being klanfodder, and southerners, historically, should not be termed 'yanks'). Hence, the rest of your statement is not relevant. Time for you to think things over and try again.
  • Reply 48 of 59
    That's all well and good but I was hoping for a sanctimonious yet disarmingly weak response for not only my absurd parody of your position but also for my restrained factual question. Care to oblige me?
  • Reply 49 of 59
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    That's all well and good but I was hoping for a sanctimonious yet disarmingly weak response for not only my absurd parody of your position but also for my restrained factual question. Care to oblige me?



    I appear to have hit the ball way wrong as it comes to the Civil War. I guess I like AppleOutsider a lot more when I spice it up a little, but well, guess you are legally winner on that one count. Maybe. I should look it up.
  • Reply 50 of 59
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Now that you guys have got all that off your chests, perhaps you might like to turn your attention to the question at hand.

    Since you have been Blagging, the Indonesian Government has landed a formidable force in Aceh.

    Burnings & shootings have commenced. Schools have been burnt too the ground by unknown or unnamed forces...And the U.N. is estimating a tidal wave of 300,000 plus refugees to come pouring out of Aceh...\
  • Reply 51 of 59
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Damn. This is a worthy topic of discussion, almost would suggest re-starting it with a different title and locking this thread.....



    Anyway, I just got in and will swing a browser out at the news outlets and see what I come up with here. Is this essentially a religious version of the Khmer Rouge springing up in Indonesia? This has all the hallmarks of MAJOR SHIT. Going to read about this now.



    Meanwhile, consider locking this thread and starting a new one that doesn't get hijacked.
  • Reply 52 of 59
    Indonesia is a populous country, and if it enters meltdown phase, Yugoslavia style, all neighbours should worry.

    Australia is a big, sparsely populated country, should an Indonesian meltdown spill over, I doubt its defensive abilities (even if highly competent) could by themselves, handle it.



    It has been assumed for a long time, that involvement of a powerful ally is indispensable to assure Australia's defence, and since WW2 had shown Britian's inability to fuflill that part, it has been fufilled by the US ever since.



    Also, Indonesia has long been considered the bigger potential threat to Austiralia's security, given the geogprahical and demographic situations of the concerned countries.



    Back in the nineteen-sixities, seveties, and eighties, there were calls to reduce or even dismantle the presence of US troops in Western Europe for that was claimed to be the very reason of Soviet ?assertivity?, of course, Western European countries would have been unable to assure their own defence against a Soviet attack.I still remember the eager advices to treat the USSR very delicately so not to provoque its ire, it was often the prime motivation of the policies called ?Détente? and ?Ostpolitik?.

    Basically it meant this: ?for the sake of not provoking the Soviets, let's render Western Europe indefensible. ?

    The USSR percieved it as a sign of weak resolve and so increased its aggressive ventures.

    In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which, as it had been tacitly accepted, was seen as neutral zone since the the nineteenth century. That's when the US forsook any consideration for ?Détente?, and resumed the Cold War, which the Soviets had not abandoned in the first place.



    I believe any call saying: ?for the sake of not provoking the crazies, let's render Australia indefensible, ? should remain unheeded.
  • Reply 53 of 59
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

    Indonesia is a populous country, and if it enters meltdown phase, Yugoslavia style, all neighbours should worry.

    Australia is a big, sparsely populated country, should an Indonesian meltdown spill over, I doubt its defensive abilities (even if highly competent) could by themselves, handle it.



    It has been assumed for a long time, that involvement of a powerful ally is indispensable to assure Australia's defence, and since WW2 had shown Britian's inability to fuflill that part, it has been fufilled by the US ever since.



    Also, Indonesia has long been considered the bigger potential threat to Austiralia's security, given the geogprahical and demographic situations of the concerned countries.



    Back in the nineteen-sixities, seveties, and eighties, there were calls to reduce or even dismantle the presence of US troops in Western Europe for that was claimed to be the very reason of Soviet ?assertivity?, of course, Western European countries would have been unable to assure their own defence against a Soviet attack.I still remember the eager advices to treat the USSR very delicately so not to provoque its ire, it was often the prime motivation of the policies called ?Détente? and ?Ostpolitik?.

    Basically it meant this: ?for the sake of not provoking the Soviets, let's render Western Europe indefensible. ?

    The USSR percieved it as a sign of weak resolve and so increased its aggressive ventures.

    In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which, as it had been tacitly accepted, was seen as neutral zone since the the nineteenth century. That's when the US forsook any consideration for ?Détente?, and resumed the Cold War, which the Soviets had not abandoned in the first place.



    I believe any call saying: ?for the sake of not provoking the crazies, let's render Australia indefensible, ? should remain unheeded.




    I am happy to see someone coming back in the topic.



    The question of a need of more US troops is interesting.

    More US troops means a better defense

    More US trooops means also more dependance of Australia toward US.



    I think that Indonesia is not a threat as big as USSR in the cold war time. Australia is a big continent but mostly a desertic one. Large space but difficult to be exploited by vaste populations who deeply rely on agriculture.



    However, the threat is still real, especially if we consider that radical islamist should take the power, and that kind of leader is more interested in dogma (war on infidels) rather than pure logical management.



    Australia needs a correct level defense. I don't know the current size or effectiveness of australian defense, but i think that she has to be effecient in two aeras : air and sea. Australia do not needs a strong ground army : australia is very big : it take time to move on the ground, the army cannot cover efficiently the whole aera. It's better to prevent the ennemy to enter via a correct aerian defense or marine. Two sectors where quality has the same importance than quantity.

    I don't know if australia have such an army ( a moderate one in size but mostly specialized in the sea and air combat), or if she has to rely on US help.
  • Reply 54 of 59
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Here's a puzzler: if a thread strays completely from its stated topic, are subsequent attempts at on-topic posts thereby off topic?



    Anyhow, it might be worth mentioning to the non-aussies reading this thread that our current government is very keen on maintaining top-notch relations with the US, but is somewhat more lukewarm in its regional relations.



    Our military has just announced a new strategic direction for our armed forces, one that tailors our training, procurement, etc. to fighting alongside the US in regional conflicts, as opposed to aiming for military self-sufficiency.



    Though I'm no military analyst, it seems to me that self-sufficiency is all but de rigeur when you're talking about the defence of your country. Relying on alliances -- no matter how well established -- seems to me to be an unjustifiable risk.



    In short, an enhanced US presence here is a near certainty.



    As for Indonesia, I'm no fan of the current regime, but my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it has it rose to power via past anti-communist interventions fostered by Western intelligence agencies. So you could say that a disintegrating archipelago would be one almighty case of blowback for Australia.



    I personally think that we need much stronger economic ties with Indonesia. More trade leads to more grassroots cultural exchange, which leads to mutual understanding, which leads to lasting peace.



    There have been a few moves towards a free-trade agreement with the US: I think we really need to pursue one with Indonesia.
  • Reply 55 of 59
    boy_analogboy_analog Posts: 315member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc



    Australia needs a correct level defense. I don't know the current size or effectiveness of australian defense, but i think that she has to be effecient in two aeras : air and sea. Australia do not needs a strong ground army : australia is very big : it take time to move on the ground, the army cannot cover efficiently the whole aera. It's better to prevent the ennemy to enter via a correct aerian defense or marine. Two sectors where quality has the same importance than quantity.

    I don't know if australia have such an army ( a moderate one in size but mostly specialized in the sea and air combat), or if she has to rely on US help.



    Yes, I hope you're right about this plan. Naturally, we don't know the exact strategies favoured for these contingencies.



    However, I do recall seeing some disturbing documents released several years ago (perhaps originally dating back to WWII) that showed a "fall back line" across the top of Australia should we face a serious attack. It's scary to think about this prospect, but the strategy is clear. The north of Australia is sparsely populated and difficult to defend. Giving it up easily would thereby make it a simple matter to counterattack invading forces.



    Anyhow, it should be emphasised that Indonesia really is a moderate Islamic country, even though it is somewhat politically repressive. When we look at a map and see a massive archipelago with the name "Indonesia" across almost all of it, we fall into thinking of Indonesia as one monolithic entity. It is anything but.



    Instead, Indonesia is a seething cauldron of different cultures and allegiances, held together by a necessarily (alas) strong-arm government. Immanuel's allusion to Yugoslavia is spot on. We can be quite certain of continued unrest in Indonesia, but I strongly suspect that the only people who need to fear Indonesia are other Indonesians.
  • Reply 56 of 59
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Unfortunately, for both Australia & Indonesia, there is a lot of mis-understanding and mis-interpretation of signs, & signals. ( The media on either side doesn't help matters either )



    There is a lot of distrust of Australia in Indonesia..

    There are many in the Indonesian Military as well as in mainstream political parties, who haven't forgiven Australia for stepping into East Timor.

    We have been labelled as Infidel & interloppers, despite the fact Australian forces went in under a UN flag in order to allow for free & fair elections to be held, we are held in deep suspicion as to our ulterior motives.



    Conversely, Australians in general know little or next to nothing about Indonesia, Indonesian cultural customs, languages, histories, religious inclinations etc..



    Australia only started to feel threatened when President Sukarno started to flirt with communism in the middle 60's.

    In what could be considered bad timing by Sukarno, American Political strategy regarding South East Asia, was dominated with the idea of communist containment ..otherwise known as the fear of the " Domino Effect " . with South east asian countries toppling one by one to communism.

    Naturally, the Americans didn't want to see another hostile Communist state being established in Indonesia.....hence Sukarno's rapid fall from power.



    Since that time Indonesia has become a relatively stable friend of the west..but with the economic collapse of the Asian Tiger economies ( late 90's ), Indonesia was badly hurt...



    All these factors, plus an deep sense of hurt national pride ( loss of face ) has been exploited by Fundamentalist Islamic groups.

    From my reading of the political situation, I still don't think Australia has much to worry about, unless Indonesia suddenly chooses to become expansionist in outlook.



    But I doubt that will ever happen..even though there are groups within Indonesia who actually claim that all of Northern Australia belongs to Indonesia. The basis of their claim being that they traded along the coast with aborigines for several hundred years before the coming of Europeans.



    99.99% of Indonesians would laugh at such a claim, but there is a hard core element....the same sort of hard core element that pushed United nations sanctioned Australian Administration out of West Papua in the 70's, ( Irian Jaya ) and over which tensions are rising between Australia's clandestine support (or tolerance) of the " Free Papua Movement " Head office in Australia.

    Attrocities are occuring there too, with the all too recent killing of american teachers by Indonesian soldiers.

    America & Australia are essentially caught in a double bind..knowing full well that the Indonesian Mititary is the real force behind Indonesian politics.



    Both USA & AUS are aware of Indonesia's violent miltary track record..but can't be seen to be "not " supporting the only institution that can project power throughout the Indonesian Archipelego..



    The Indonesian Military knows this..as do the fundamentalists.....

    Only time will tell..but I suspect Aceh is going to be a big bang when it all goes up...\\
  • Reply 57 of 59
    Mein Kompf, you are one pompous prick (and what does your civil war argument have to with this thread?). Your tired sterotypical anti-american antics are very old. get a life.



    most of the US has already written off france, belgium and germany. What does Belgium do in the world besides make chocolates, waffles, 2nd-rate tennis players and play host the european (EU/NATO/ICC) debating society in Brussels. Your history is nothing to be desired.



    Stop living in the past and do something in the present instead of that rubbish you spew.
  • Reply 58 of 59
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by [email protected]

    Mein Kompf, you are one pompous prick (and what does your civil war argument have to with this thread?). Your tired sterotypical anti-american antics are very old. get a life.



    most of the US has already written off france, belgium and germany. What does Belgium do in the world besides make chocolates, waffles, 2nd-rate tennis players and play host the european (EU/NATO/ICC) debating society in Brussels. Your history is nothing to be desired.



    Stop living in the past and do something in the present instead of that rubbish you spew.




    It's not because some member of Belgium said some silly comments about the US south, that insulting Belgium will look better. This thread has derailed enough, there is no need to continuee in this way.



    I don't want that this thread degenerate more in a silly flamewar that have no connection with the initial subject. I will not closed this thread, but i am ready to delete all the post non related to the subject. Interested thread have the right to live even if they are hijacked.
  • Reply 59 of 59
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    I don't want that this thread degenerate more in a silly flamewar that have no connection with the initial subject. I will not closed this thread, but i am ready to delete all the post non related to the subject. Interested thread have the right to live even if they are hijacked.



    Ah well, [email protected] is completely right though, and he/she can't help the fact that the truth is rather harsh.



    I'd even go further and say that I will try my best to lay off the stereotyping for a while. I wouldn't want to be remembered for the moderate amount of excesses I have indulged in.
Sign In or Register to comment.