This halfwit sold out Australia decades ago in favour of Communist China. He's absolutely batshit crazy delusional in his latest rant. Has he not seen what China has done and is doing in the South China Sea? Time to stop giving this idiotic oxygen thief airtime.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-08/paul-keating-aukus-china-albanese-foreign-policy/104201388

I thought Keating made some good points.

Quote:

Mr Keating says the AUKUS agreement and Australia's longstanding alliance with the United States, which he called an "aggressive ally", is what may make Australia a target for any incident with China.

He has that one backwards. China is going after every easy target it can get.

When the trump of war sounds, resemble the porcupine... that'll put 'em off...

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:01am:

Quote: Mr Keating says the AUKUS agreement and Australia's longstanding alliance with the United States, which he called an "aggressive ally", is what may make Australia a target for any incident with China. He has that one backwards. China is going after every easy target it can get.

Our previous wars in South East Asia with the USA "helping" haven't turned out very well:
the Korean War, the Vietnam war - we lost both of them -
why would a war with China be successful?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:13am:

freediver wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:01am: Quote: Mr Keating says the AUKUS agreement and Australia's longstanding alliance with the United States, which he called an "aggressive ally", is what may make Australia a target for any incident with China. He has that one backwards. China is going after every easy target it can get. Our previous wars in South East Asia with the USA "helping" haven't turned out very well: the Korean War, the Vietnam war - we lost both of them - why would a war with China be successful?

What makes you think there would be a war?

And what would the alternative be? Just let China annex us?

In what sense did we lose the Korean war?

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:21am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:13am: freediver wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:01am: Quote: Mr Keating says the AUKUS agreement and Australia's longstanding alliance with the United States, which he called an "aggressive ally", is what may make Australia a target for any incident with China. He has that one backwards. China is going after every easy target it can get. Our previous wars in South East Asia with the USA "helping" haven't turned out very well: the Korean War, the Vietnam war - we lost both of them - why would a war with China be successful? What makes you think there would be a war? And what would the alternative be? Just let China annex us? In what sense did we lose the Korean war?

There will be a war over Taiwan - it's China's policy to take Taiwan by force if necessary.

Annex us? - China can't successfully invade us according to Paul Keating.

We lost the Korean war as now Kim has nuke missiles pointed at us and everyone else.

Quote:

China can't successfully invade us according to Paul Keating.

So he thinks we would be successful in a war with China?


Quote:

We lost the Korean war as now Kim has nuke missiles pointed at us and everyone else.

We were not trying to invade North Korea. We helped South Korea defend itself against an invasion from North Korea. This is like saying we lost WWII because Germany still exists.

Quote:

So he thinks we would be successful in a war with China?

yes - watch the interview - it's only 10 minutes.




Quote:

We helped South Korea defend itself against an invasion from North Korea.

But an aggressive NK still exists.
Germany is not aggressive.

Quote:

But an aggressive NK still exists.

So does South Korea. Thanks to UN intervention.

https://i.natgeofe.com/n/7e04f44e-d762-459c-b0a8-3b925e572a13/76991.jpg?

freediver wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:48am:

Quote: But an aggressive NK still exists. So does South Korea. Thanks to UN intervention. https://i.natgeofe.com/n/7e04f44e-d762-459c-b0a8-3b925e572a13/76991.jpg?

The Korean war never ended -

https://origins.osu.edu/read/war-never-ended-legacy-korean-war

From July 1951 until the signing of the armistice on July 27, 1953,
a stalemate characterized the conflict and neither side gained much territory.
A peace treaty was never signed; the Korean War has never officially ended.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 7:45am:

I thought Keating made some good points.

He really doesn't - not one single point he makes is "good". He calls the US "aggressive" when it's actually China who has been the aggressor. China has unilaterally claimed most of the SCS as its own, in clear violation of international law and a binding international court ruling. They ram Philippino naval vessels within their own territorial waters, attack Philippino sailors and steal and damage their equipment. They conduct unsafe maneuvers near US, Australian, Canadian and other military aircraft flying in international airspace and ships in international waters. They promised not to militarise artificial reefs and then went ahead and did just that - in territory that was not their own. China does all this and somehow the United States are the aggressors? Sorry, but Keating is a delusional twat who clearly has lost his marbles long ago. All that the US, Australia and others are doing is attempting to ensure the territorial integrity of multiple nations within the SCS that China is attempting to trample over - an area through which a huge amount of sea trade is carried, especially for Australia. Keating needs to pizz off to China and stay there because his views are not in line with reality by any stretch of the imagination.

Conga line

https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/sites/default/files/9781760644789.jpg

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 9:53am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:45am: I thought Keating made some good points. He really doesn't - not one single point he makes is "good". He calls the US "aggressive" when it's actually China who has been the aggressor. China has unilaterally claimed most of the SCS as its own, in clear violation of international law and a binding international court ruling. They ram Philippino naval vessels within their own territorial waters, attack Philippino sailors and steal and damage their equipment. They conduct unsafe maneuvers near US, Australian, Canadian and other military aircraft flying in international airspace and ships in international waters. They promised not to militarise artificial reefs and then went ahead and did just that - in territory that was not their own. China does all this and somehow the United States are the aggressors? Sorry, but Keating is a delusional twat who clearly has lost his marbles long ago. All that the US, Australia and others are doing is attempting to ensure the territorial integrity of multiple nations within the SCS that China is attempting to trample over - an area through which a huge amount of sea trade is carried, especially for Australia. Keating needs to pizz off to China and stay there because his views are not in line with reality by any stretch of the imagination.

You make some rather good points.
I would also say that -

Keating is saying we don't need the Yanks to fight China -
we can fight the largest navy in the world all on our own.   :-/

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 1:12pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 9:53am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:45am: I thought Keating made some good points. He really doesn't - not one single point he makes is "good". He calls the US "aggressive" when it's actually China who has been the aggressor. China has unilaterally claimed most of the SCS as its own, in clear violation of international law and a binding international court ruling. They ram Philippino naval vessels within their own territorial waters, attack Philippino sailors and steal and damage their equipment. They conduct unsafe maneuvers near US, Australian, Canadian and other military aircraft flying in international airspace and ships in international waters. They promised not to militarise artificial reefs and then went ahead and did just that - in territory that was not their own. China does all this and somehow the United States are the aggressors? Sorry, but Keating is a delusional twat who clearly has lost his marbles long ago. All that the US, Australia and others are doing is attempting to ensure the territorial integrity of multiple nations within the SCS that China is attempting to trample over - an area through which a huge amount of sea trade is carried, especially for Australia. Keating needs to pizz off to China and stay there because his views are not in line with reality by any stretch of the imagination. You make some rather good points. I would also say that - Keating is saying we don't need the Yanks to fight China - we can fight the largest navy in the world all on our own.   :-/

Australia wouldn't need to fight anybody if Uncle Sam did not foment wars and chaos.

Australia is incapable of defending its coastlines or its trade routes.

The submarines are a figment.

None of the Australian defence force personnel want to spend their lives sailing around while restraining their anger from punching a Chinaman in the nose because Australian propaganda has raised the anger levels of Australian military personnel.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 1:39pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 1:12pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 9:53am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:45am: I thought Keating made some good points. He really doesn't - not one single point he makes is "good". He calls the US "aggressive" when it's actually China who has been the aggressor. China has unilaterally claimed most of the SCS as its own, in clear violation of international law and a binding international court ruling. They ram Philippino naval vessels within their own territorial waters, attack Philippino sailors and steal and damage their equipment. They conduct unsafe maneuvers near US, Australian, Canadian and other military aircraft flying in international airspace and ships in international waters. They promised not to militarise artificial reefs and then went ahead and did just that - in territory that was not their own. China does all this and somehow the United States are the aggressors? Sorry, but Keating is a delusional twat who clearly has lost his marbles long ago. All that the US, Australia and others are doing is attempting to ensure the territorial integrity of multiple nations within the SCS that China is attempting to trample over - an area through which a huge amount of sea trade is carried, especially for Australia. Keating needs to pizz off to China and stay there because his views are not in line with reality by any stretch of the imagination. You make some rather good points. I would also say that - Keating is saying we don't need the Yanks to fight China - we can fight the largest navy in the world all on our own.   :-/ Australia wouldn't need to fight anybody if Uncle Sam did not foment wars and chaos. Australia is incapable of defending its coastlines or its trade routes. The submarines are a figment. None of the Australian defence force personnel want to spend their lives sailing around while restraining their anger from punching a Chinaman in the nose because Australian propaganda has raised the anger levels of Australian military personnel.

China has the largest navy in the world.

My grandmother used to say - way back in the 1970s -

" if the Chinese thought they could get away with it -
they would invade us tomorrow."

When Paul Keating speaks it's only a matter of time before bob Carr pop up and adds something.

It should be a condition of being paid parliament pension they aren't allowed talk 

There is a reason why they were voted out.

Losers

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 3:06pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 1:39pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 1:12pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 9:53am: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:45am: I thought Keating made some good points. He really doesn't - not one single point he makes is "good". He calls the US "aggressive" when it's actually China who has been the aggressor. China has unilaterally claimed most of the SCS as its own, in clear violation of international law and a binding international court ruling. They ram Philippino naval vessels within their own territorial waters, attack Philippino sailors and steal and damage their equipment. They conduct unsafe maneuvers near US, Australian, Canadian and other military aircraft flying in international airspace and ships in international waters. They promised not to militarise artificial reefs and then went ahead and did just that - in territory that was not their own. China does all this and somehow the United States are the aggressors? Sorry, but Keating is a delusional twat who clearly has lost his marbles long ago. All that the US, Australia and others are doing is attempting to ensure the territorial integrity of multiple nations within the SCS that China is attempting to trample over - an area through which a huge amount of sea trade is carried, especially for Australia. Keating needs to pizz off to China and stay there because his views are not in line with reality by any stretch of the imagination. You make some rather good points. I would also say that - Keating is saying we don't need the Yanks to fight China - we can fight the largest navy in the world all on our own.   :-/ Australia wouldn't need to fight anybody if Uncle Sam did not foment wars and chaos. Australia is incapable of defending its coastlines or its trade routes. The submarines are a figment. None of the Australian defence force personnel want to spend their lives sailing around while restraining their anger from punching a Chinaman in the nose because Australian propaganda has raised the anger levels of Australian military personnel. China has the largest navy in the world. My grandmother used to say - way back in the 1970s - " if the Chinese thought they could get away with it - they would invade us tomorrow."

How long would their boats take to get to Australia?

Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 5:57pm:

How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here?

Keating said 10 to 15 days -
he reckons we could stop the whole Chinese armada in that time.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/unpacking-chinas-naval-buildup

China now possesses the world’s largest maritime fighting force, operating 234 warships.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 6:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 5:57pm: How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here? Keating said 10 to 15 days - he reckons we could stop the whole Chinese armada in that time.

Sounds plausible.

Is he wrong?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 5:57pm:

How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here?

We have 63 f35s and 24 f18s, how do you think that'd go against a Carrier Battle Group or two, let alone an armada big enough to build a bridgehead on Au? I think we'd be relying on the Chinese being incompetent.

Quick wars are getting longer.
The US was in WWI for 2 years, then 4 years in WWII.  Korea is permanent and Vietnam was lost in 8 years, Afghanistan in 20 years.
Israel had a Six Day war, then Three Weeks in 1973. Gaza is 11 months so far and counting.

The US fighting in 3 wars simultaneously could slow things down.

Setanta wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 6:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 5:57pm: How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here? We have 63 f35s and 24 f18s, how do you think that'd go against a Carrier Battle Group or two, let alone an armada big enough to build a bridgehead on Au? I think we'd be relying on the Chinese being incompetent.

I don't know.  How would that go?

If they can't stop a few boats made in China, why do we have 63 f35s and 24 f18s at all?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 7:02pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 6:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 5:57pm: How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here? We have 63 f35s and 24 f18s, how do you think that'd go against a Carrier Battle Group or two, let alone an armada big enough to build a bridgehead on Au? I think we'd be relying on the Chinese being incompetent. I don't know.  How would that go? If they can't stop a few boats made in China, why do we have 63 f35s and 24 f18s at all?

I'm sure Sun Tzu would have a few words about underestimating your enemy. Why do we have them, defence in cooperation with our allies, that is where Keating's comments are ridiculous.

We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that.

This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it.

China's navy is expected to grow to 400 ships by 2025 and 440 ships by 2030. 8 ships/ year. It includes destroyers, guided-missile cruisers and a dedicated drone carrier. 
US will build six new ships in 2025.

Australia in the next decade will have six new frigates or .6 ship/year.
Japan builds two frigates in 2024, one in 2025 and two after 2025.

Gordon wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 7:40pm:

We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it.

And they will also know that, therefore will plan for it. They have two CBGs now and by the end of the decade will have two more, one with nuclear powered carrier. They may not be capable today but they are working their way there quite quickly.

Gordon wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 7:40pm:

We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it.

Exactly.

It should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:01pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. Exactly. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

You would have made a good propagandist for the second world war. Japanese are myopic midgets... Why are you racist and think the Chinese are hopeless?

It's good seeing you agree and partner up with Gordon though.

Setanta wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. Exactly. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel. You would have made a good propagandist for the second world war. Myopic midgets... Why are you racist and think the Chinese are hopeless?

Absolutely nothing to do with anyone's nationality.

It's about extremely fast planes in the air versus very slow boats underneath them.

Year nine maths, innit?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:10pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. Exactly. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel. You would have made a good propagandist for the second world war. Myopic midgets... Why are you racist and think the Chinese are hopeless? Absolutely nothing to do with anyone's nationality. It's about extremely fast planes in the air versus very slow boats underneath them. Year nine maths, innit?

That's why US CBGs are destroyed all the time by tiny air forces.

Lol.
Why would the Chinese invade Australia?

They all ready own anything profitable here.

Most of that privatise and sold off by Labor.

Why would they wasting money and man power?

It's far more in there interest just to keep jacking up electrical prices and tolls and rubbish collection and pharmaceutical costs and profit from it while Australians slowly slide into poverty.

The pooer we become even the more dependent on Chinese companies providing our essential services we become.

Btw by all estimate, if Indonesia invaded Australia and we where minimum two weeks aware of the threat the ADF, given perfect weather and untold luck could be able to fight a rear guard action that would enable the majority ADF time to retreat to Tasmania and either wait rescue by American forces or assistance from NZ to retreat further to the north island.

Don't kid yourself, we have a toy armed forces compared to major Asia nations

Setanta wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 7:48pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. And they will also know that, therefore will plan for it. They have two CBGs now and by the end of the decade will have two more, one with nuclear powered carrier. They may not be capable today but they are working their way there quite quickly.

I'm not under estimating them, but the logistics to invade are staggering. They could however, cut us off and strangle us, and that is why we're buying new kit.

One thing to point out, entering AUKUS doesn't just get us the new toys, it also strengthens the alliance with USA so if China did try to cut us off, they'd help, and China would go home.

Daves2017 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:39pm:

Lol. Why would the Chinese invade Australia? They all ready own anything profitable here.

This. They can buy what they need.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:01pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. Exactly. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Nonsense - we only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water
at any one time.
Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    ::)

How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships?    ::)

Gordon wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:40pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:48pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. And they will also know that, therefore will plan for it. They have two CBGs now and by the end of the decade will have two more, one with nuclear powered carrier. They may not be capable today but they are working their way there quite quickly. I'm not under estimating them, but the logistics to invade are staggering. They could however, cut us off and strangle us, and that is why we're buying new kit. One thing to point out, entering AUKUS doesn't just get us the new toys, it also strengthens the alliance with USA so if China did try to cut us off, they'd help, and China would go home.

This is what I think is their end game with regard to the South China Sea - control of shipping lanes through which the annual trade passing through the South China Sea accounts for more than 60 percent of global maritime trade, more than 22 percent of total global trade, and one third of the global shipping. Shipping accounts for over 99% of Australia's total merchandise trade by mass. If they wanted to, the Chinese could hold the world hostage simply by controlling access to the SCS for commercial shipping.

The other reason I think they want to control the SCS is because of their plans to "reunify" Taiwan. It'll never happen peacefully, and if they are really intent on this happening (and I think they are), the only way will be through war. They know the SCS would be a major route for any adversary's warships to come to the aid of Taiwan and if they can deny access to that route, they can fortify their position around Taiwan as the only other route is through the Pacific via Guam or from Japan or South Korea, making removal of Chinese forces that much more difficult and costly. I think the "fight" over natural resources is just a cover for their true intentions.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. Exactly. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Nonsense - we only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time. Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    ::) How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships?    ::)

I'm not saying that our small fleet of submarines could do it, but underestimate them at your peril. They're quieter than a nuclear submarine and in most instances, a diesel/electric like the Collins will almost always detect a nuclear submarine first before it is detected itself. Yes, nuclear submarines have awesome endurance and speed, but their achilles heel is their nuclear propulsion. The very thing that makes them more detectable (not saying they're easily detected) is the water flowing through the multitude of pipes within the nuclear reactor. Yes, it is very well masked, but not 100%.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.  The PRC does not have the experience, nor the ability to operate far out of sight of their coastline.  Their navy is composed primarily of smaller, coastal craft for the most part.  They lack experience and ability at ASW warfare.  They would be easy pickings for the Australian COLLINS class submarines and the future nuclea boats we are acquiring.  They have never operated for long on the sort of missions which are required to attack Australia.  We are over 5,000 kilometres from China.  They have never operated for sustained operations more than 500 kilometers from China.  This discussion belongs in the defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 9:47pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.  The PRC does not have the experience, nor the ability to operate far out of sight of their coastline.  Their navy is composed primarily of smaller, coastal craft for the most part.  They lack experience and ability at ASW warfare.  They would be easy pickings for the Australian COLLINS class submarines and the future nuclea boats we are acquiring.  They have never operated for long on the sort of missions which are required to attack Australia.  We are over 5,000 kilometres from China.  They have never operated for sustained operations more than 500 kilometers from China.  This discussion belongs in the defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

But you banned me from there.  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:42pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 7:40pm: We don't have to be able to 100% beat off a Chinese invasion, just make it immensely costly for them, and we can certainly do that. This isn't 1941, they can't sneak up on us. It takes months to mobilise an invasion that size and we'd know soon after they started planning it. Exactly. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Nonsense - we only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time. Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    ::) How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships?    ::) I'm not saying that our small fleet of submarines could do it, but underestimate them at your peril. They're quieter than a nuclear submarine and in most instances, a diesel/electric like the Collins will almost always detect a nuclear submarine first before it is detected itself. Yes, nuclear submarines have awesome endurance and speed, but their achilles heel is their nuclear propulsion. The very thing that makes them more detectable (not saying they're easily detected) is the water flowing through the multitude of pipes within the nuclear reactor. Yes, it is very well masked, but not 100%.

Ohh come on - we can't beat a superpower navy with a few old subs.   ::)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 10:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 9:47pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.  The PRC does not have the experience, nor the ability to operate far out of sight of their coastline.  Their navy is composed primarily of smaller, coastal craft for the most part.  They lack experience and ability at ASW warfare.  They would be easy pickings for the Australian COLLINS class submarines and the future nuclea boats we are acquiring.  They have never operated for long on the sort of missions which are required to attack Australia.  We are over 5,000 kilometres from China.  They have never operated for sustained operations more than 500 kilometers from China.  This discussion belongs in the defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) But you banned me from there.  ::)

Change your tactics, Bobby.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 10:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 10:15pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 9:47pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.  The PRC does not have the experience, nor the ability to operate far out of sight of their coastline.  Their navy is composed primarily of smaller, coastal craft for the most part.  They lack experience and ability at ASW warfare.  They would be easy pickings for the Australian COLLINS class submarines and the future nuclea boats we are acquiring.  They have never operated for long on the sort of missions which are required to attack Australia.  We are over 5,000 kilometres from China.  They have never operated for sustained operations more than 500 kilometers from China.  This discussion belongs in the defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) But you banned me from there.  ::) Change your tactics, Bobby.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

I'm only welcome at your MRB if I agree with your posts.   ::)

I don't agree - you write nonsense and can't back it up with any facts.

https://i.imgur.com/LYBtwD9.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 6:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 6:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 5:57pm: How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here? Keating said 10 to 15 days - he reckons we could stop the whole Chinese armada in that time. Sounds plausible. Is he wrong?

Australia alone?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 10:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 10:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 10:15pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 9:47pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.  The PRC does not have the experience, nor the ability to operate far out of sight of their coastline.  Their navy is composed primarily of smaller, coastal craft for the most part.  They lack experience and ability at ASW warfare.  They would be easy pickings for the Australian COLLINS class submarines and the future nuclea boats we are acquiring.  They have never operated for long on the sort of missions which are required to attack Australia.  We are over 5,000 kilometres from China.  They have never operated for sustained operations more than 500 kilometers from China.  This discussion belongs in the defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) But you banned me from there.  ::) Change your tactics, Bobby.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) I'm only welcome at your MRB if I agree with your posts.   ::) I don't agree - you write nonsense and can't back it up with any facts.

Bobby, you should acquiesce to Brian's superior intellect.
He has several degrees, including a doctorate of divinity.

Gordon wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 8:41pm:

Daves2017 wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 8:39pm: Lol. Why would the Chinese invade Australia? They all ready own anything profitable here. This. They can buy what they need.

Including Australian politicians, however they have to compete with Indians for best prices.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 8:11am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 6:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 6:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 5:57pm: How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here? Keating said 10 to 15 days - he reckons we could stop the whole Chinese armada in that time. Sounds plausible. Is he wrong? Australia alone?

yes - Paul reckons we could stop an entire Chinese armada of well over 200 warships all by ourselves.

Watch the video here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-08/paul-keating-aukus-china-albanese-foreign-policy/104201388

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 12:35pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 8:11am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 6:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 6:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 5:57pm: How long would their boats take to get to Australia? Is it possible that our Air Force could sink them long before they got here? Keating said 10 to 15 days - he reckons we could stop the whole Chinese armada in that time. Sounds plausible. Is he wrong? Australia alone? yes - Paul reckons we could stop an entire Chinese armada of well over 200 warships all by ourselves. Watch the video here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-08/paul-keating-aukus-china-albanese-foreign-policy/104201388

Is that what you think is plausible Greg?

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 12:39pm:

Is that what you think is plausible Greg?

yes he does and so does Brian - our defence expert.


We only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time.
Sometimes we've only had one in the water.   

How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2024 at 10:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 10:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 10:15pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 9th, 2024 at 9:47pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.  The PRC does not have the experience, nor the ability to operate far out of sight of their coastline.  Their navy is composed primarily of smaller, coastal craft for the most part.  They lack experience and ability at ASW warfare.  They would be easy pickings for the Australian COLLINS class submarines and the future nuclea boats we are acquiring.  They have never operated for long on the sort of missions which are required to attack Australia.  We are over 5,000 kilometres from China.  They have never operated for sustained operations more than 500 kilometers from China.  This discussion belongs in the defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) But you banned me from there.  ::) Change your tactics, Bobby.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) I'm only welcome at your MRB if I agree with your posts.   ::) I don't agree - you write nonsense and can't back it up with any facts.

Sounds like a personal problem, then, Bobby.  There are plenty other posters who disagree with my views and they are not banned as trolls.  When you grow up and gain some knowledge you'll be welcome again.  However, I know you never will, so I'm not worried.  Tsk, tsk, tsk..  ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 12:45pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:39pm: Is that what you think is plausible Greg? yes he does and so does Brian - our defence expert. We only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time. Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships?

Ships crewed by inexperienced men and women who do not understand the complexities of anti-submarine warfare, who have no experience of operating so far for extended periods away from Chinese waters.  Ships which are generally not all that well protected from submarines and surface ships operating over the horizon.  Tsk, tsk, tsk..  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 1:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:39pm: Is that what you think is plausible Greg? yes he does and so does Brian - our defence expert. We only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time. Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships? Ships crewed by inexperienced men and women who do not understand the complexities of anti-submarine warfare, who have no experience of operating so far for extended periods away from Chinese waters.  Ships which are generally not all that well protected from submarines and surface ships operating over the horizon.  Tsk, tsk, tsk..  ::) ::)

So you agree with Paul that we don't need the Yanks?    :-/

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 1:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 1:15pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:39pm: Is that what you think is plausible Greg? yes he does and so does Brian - our defence expert. We only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time. Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships? Ships crewed by inexperienced men and women who do not understand the complexities of anti-submarine warfare, who have no experience of operating so far for extended periods away from Chinese waters.  Ships which are generally not all that well protected from submarines and surface ships operating over the horizon.  Tsk, tsk, tsk..  ::) ::) So you agree with Paul that we don't need the Yanks?    :-/

The Americans reward their allies with things other than just military support, Bobby.  Support which reduces the cost of defending ourselves considerably.  Most Favoured Nation trading status saves us millions, Bobby compared to the open market.  Millions which can be spent on social programmes.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Oh look, Brian Ross is being evasive.

More like hiding under women's clothes,
more than having a good side-step.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 2:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 1:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 1:15pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:39pm: Is that what you think is plausible Greg? yes he does and so does Brian - our defence expert. We only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time. Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships? Ships crewed by inexperienced men and women who do not understand the complexities of anti-submarine warfare, who have no experience of operating so far for extended periods away from Chinese waters.  Ships which are generally not all that well protected from submarines and surface ships operating over the horizon.  Tsk, tsk, tsk..  ::) ::) So you agree with Paul that we don't need the Yanks?    :-/ The Americans reward their allies with things other than just military support, Bobby.  Support which reduces the cost of defending ourselves considerably.  Most Favoured Nation trading status saves us millions, Bobby compared to the open market.  Millions which can be spent on social programmes.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

So you don't support Keating?

You do support buying 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price?

Keating talks about AUKUS?

The problem started in WW2.
Our soldiers were training with broomsticks as we didn't have
enough rifles for them.
We couldn't fight the Japs like that.
Only the USA stepped in and helped us with shiploads of rifles
and ammo and everything else we needed.
Then the Yanks lost countless lives pushing the Japs back.
We can't defend ourselves without the Yanks and so we have to do what we're told.
They don't ask us - they tell us.
example -
buy these 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price - and we say yes.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 6:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 2:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 1:51pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 1:15pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 12:39pm: Is that what you think is plausible Greg? yes he does and so does Brian - our defence expert. We only have 6 old Collins subs and usually only 3 in the water at any one time. Sometimes we've only had one in the water.    How could we stop an armada of over 200 well defended ships? Ships crewed by inexperienced men and women who do not understand the complexities of anti-submarine warfare, who have no experience of operating so far for extended periods away from Chinese waters.  Ships which are generally not all that well protected from submarines and surface ships operating over the horizon.  Tsk, tsk, tsk..  ::) ::) So you agree with Paul that we don't need the Yanks?    :-/ The Americans reward their allies with things other than just military support, Bobby.  Support which reduces the cost of defending ourselves considerably.  Most Favoured Nation trading status saves us millions, Bobby compared to the open market.  Millions which can be spent on social programmes.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) So you don't support Keating? You do support buying 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price?

This has been explained to you many times before, Bobby but you still haven't bothered to understand the issue.  The 9 times the price covers everything we need to adopt a completely new technology, the shore establishments, the training and the cost of the fuel.  The Royal Australian Navy is a professional organisation which requires this.  We are not just buying subs, we are learning how to build them, how to man them efficiently and economically, Bobby so stop your bullshit trolling.  This sort of information has been available basically since day 1.  These are not Ford or Toyota cars that you can just grab off the lot and expect to know how to drive immediately.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:

Keating talks about AUKUS? The problem started in WW2. Our soldiers were training with broomsticks as we didn't have enough rifles for them. We couldn't fight the Japs like that. Only the USA stepped in and helped us with shiploads of rifles and ammo and everything else we needed. Then the Yanks lost countless lives pushing the Japs back. We can't defend ourselves without the Yanks and so we have to do what we're told. They don't ask us - they tell us. example - buy these 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price - and we say yes.

More myths and trolling, Bobby.  One thing we didn't lack for most of the war was rifles.  America supplied us with few of the them, as they were all of the wrong calibre compared to the .303 SMLE which was our standard small arm.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 3:17pm:

Oh look, Brian Ross is being evasive.

More ad huminem, Freediver?  Failure to obey your own rules?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 9:38pm:

This has been explained to you many times before, Bobby but you still haven't bothered to understand the issue.  The 9 times the price covers everything we need to adopt a completely new technology, the shore establishments, the training and the cost of the fuel.  The Royal Australian Navy is a professional organisation which requires this.  We are not just buying subs, we are learning how to build them, how to man them efficiently and economically, Bobby so stop your bullshit trolling.  This sort of information has been available basically since day 1.  These are not Ford or Toyota cars that you can just grab off the lot and expect to know how to drive immediately.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian,
you've been sucked in by marketing hype.

We're not getting that technology -
we're getting electronic black boxes that will have to go back to the US factories to be repaired.
Same with the nuclear reactors.
It is supplied a as sealed unit - never to be opened.
Only the original manufacturers have all the technology,
tests jigs and know how to fix all that stuff.
We'll be just assembling kit set subs like IKEA furniture.   ::)

We are also being ripped off for 9 times the price.
The subs cost about $5 billion each and we'll end up paying $45 billion each for them.
8 subs will cost us $360 billion and we won't get them all till at least 2040 maybe later
when the war will be over. ::)

Paul Keating Is in the same age group as Biden and Trump. Why would we be talking about people long irrelevant, people well on the slope of mental decline.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 9:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 6:07pm: Keating talks about AUKUS? The problem started in WW2. Our soldiers were training with broomsticks as we didn't have enough rifles for them. We couldn't fight the Japs like that. Only the USA stepped in and helped us with shiploads of rifles and ammo and everything else we needed. Then the Yanks lost countless lives pushing the Japs back. We can't defend ourselves without the Yanks and so we have to do what we're told. They don't ask us - they tell us. example - buy these 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price - and we say yes. More myths and trolling, Bobby.  One thing we didn't lack for most of the war was rifles.  America supplied us with few of the them, as they were all of the wrong calibre compared to the .303 SMLE which was our standard small arm.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

No myths or trolling -
I saw men at the RSL on TV who trained with broomsticks till
the US ships arrived with rifles and ammo.
We were hopelessly unprepared for WW2.   ::)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 10:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 9:41pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 6:07pm: Keating talks about AUKUS? The problem started in WW2. Our soldiers were training with broomsticks as we didn't have enough rifles for them. We couldn't fight the Japs like that. Only the USA stepped in and helped us with shiploads of rifles and ammo and everything else we needed. Then the Yanks lost countless lives pushing the Japs back. We can't defend ourselves without the Yanks and so we have to do what we're told. They don't ask us - they tell us. example - buy these 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price - and we say yes. More myths and trolling, Bobby.  One thing we didn't lack for most of the war was rifles.  America supplied us with few of the them, as they were all of the wrong calibre compared to the .303 SMLE which was our standard small arm.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) No myths or trolling - I saw men at the RSL on TV who trained with broomsticks till the US ships arrived with rifles and ammo. We were hopelessly unprepared for WW2.   ::)

The only time we were short of small arms was in 1940 when we had shipped most of our small arms reserves to the UK after Dunkirk.  By the time the US entered the war we had caught up so American weapons were useless.  America small arms were all of the wrong calibre, we would need to import ammunition for them, which would be expensive.  Bobby, WWII lasted six long years.  America was involved for only 4 years.  We made all our own weapons.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

So neither Brian nor Greg are willing to even say whether they even agree with Keating. Just tapdance around the issue.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 12:44am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 10:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 9:41pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 10th, 2024 at 6:07pm: Keating talks about AUKUS? The problem started in WW2. Our soldiers were training with broomsticks as we didn't have enough rifles for them. We couldn't fight the Japs like that. Only the USA stepped in and helped us with shiploads of rifles and ammo and everything else we needed. Then the Yanks lost countless lives pushing the Japs back. We can't defend ourselves without the Yanks and so we have to do what we're told. They don't ask us - they tell us. example - buy these 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price - and we say yes. More myths and trolling, Bobby.  One thing we didn't lack for most of the war was rifles.  America supplied us with few of the them, as they were all of the wrong calibre compared to the .303 SMLE which was our standard small arm.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) No myths or trolling - I saw men at the RSL on TV who trained with broomsticks till the US ships arrived with rifles and ammo. We were hopelessly unprepared for WW2.   ::) The only time we were short of small arms was in 1940 when we had shipped most of our small arms reserves to the UK after Dunkirk.  By the time the US entered the war we had caught up so American weapons were useless.  America small arms were all of the wrong calibre, we would need to import ammunition for them, which would be expensive.  Bobby, WWII lasted six long years.  America was involved for only 4 years.  We made all our own weapons.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/stories/australians-wartime/soldiers-issued-broom-sticks-instead-guns

To Jack's amusement they were issued with broom sticks in place of guns.
The rifles were not issued until the troops were just about ready to leave Australia.


https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/larrikins-in-khaki-tales-of-irreverence-and-courage-from-world-war-ii-diggers/
The madness began in 1939 and 1940 at recruiting centres and drill halls in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
Cursory medical examinations and lax questions as to age allowed both unfit men and under-age youths to slip into the ranks.
A dearth of modern weapons had men drilling at Ingleburn and Puckapunyal
with broom sticks as rifles and gum trees as artillery pieces.

Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2.

I want a grovelling apology from Brian for
accusing me of telling myths and trolling.

I just want a sincere apology from you for crossposting my mother’s death notice here and the sewer which I will take as an apology also of the doxxing of me that you have and are doing.

Do that and then you can ask for apologies from others.  You do troll heaps!

When bulk recruitment starts yes demand outstrips supply for a while.

Our unreadiness with major ordnance, such as warplanes, you can blame on one RG Menzies.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 7:55am:

Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling.

When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 2:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 7:55am: Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling. When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian,
you made false allegations about me - apologise.

STOP demanding apologies for crap reasons when YOU never apologise for real hurts!

Is anyone here prepared to say they agree with Keating?

Apologies for interrupting the petty bickering.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 2:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 7:55am: Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling. When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Soldiers issued with broom sticks instead of guns


Quote:

To Jack's amusement they were issued with broom sticks in place of guns. The rifles were not issued until the troops were just about ready to leave Australia.

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 6:22pm:

Is anyone here prepared to say they agree with Keating? Apologies for interrupting the petty bickering.

I don't agree with Keating that we can defend ourselves from China.
We need the Yanks on our side or we'll be just like the start of WW2 -
training our troops with broomsticks instead of rifles.

Also, 6 old Collins subs can't stop a Chinese armada of 100s of warships -
we're lucky to ever have 3 in the water at any one time.
China would probably knock out all our military airbases and jet fighters in one day.
We're sitting ducks by ourselves.

Setanta wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 6:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 2:02pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 7:55am: Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling. When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Soldiers issued with broom sticks instead of guns Quote: To Jack's amusement they were issued with broom sticks in place of guns. The rifles were not issued until the troops were just about ready to leave Australia.

*SIGH* I wish you'd pay attention.  No one has denied that broomsticks were not issued, what is being denied is Bobby's claim that this continued through the course of WWII and that the Americans supplied us with thousands of rifles and saved our bacon, Setlanta.  This is patently untrue and an example of Bobby's trolling and he wonders why he is banned from the Defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 8:59pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 6:31pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 2:02pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 7:55am: Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling. When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Soldiers issued with broom sticks instead of guns Quote: To Jack's amusement they were issued with broom sticks in place of guns. The rifles were not issued until the troops were just about ready to leave Australia. *SIGH* I wish you'd pay attention.  No one has denied that broomsticks were not issued, what is being denied is Bobby's claim that this continued through the course of WWII and that the Americans supplied us with thousands of rifles and saved our bacon, Setlanta.  This is patently untrue and an example of Bobby's trolling and he wonders why he is banned from the Defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

No Brian - I mentioned broomsticks and
you went off the deep end as though I had made up lies.
When I found 2 links 2 prove it you reworded it all to make yourself seem innocent.

forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 9:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 8:59pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 6:31pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 2:02pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 7:55am: Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling. When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Soldiers issued with broom sticks instead of guns Quote: To Jack's amusement they were issued with broom sticks in place of guns. The rifles were not issued until the troops were just about ready to leave Australia. *SIGH* I wish you'd pay attention.  No one has denied that broomsticks were not issued, what is being denied is Bobby's claim that this continued through the course of WWII and that the Americans supplied us with thousands of rifles and saved our bacon, Setlanta.  This is patently untrue and an example of Bobby's trolling and he wonders why he is banned from the Defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) No Brian - I mentioned broomsticks and you went off the deep end as though I had made up lies. When I found 2 links 2 prove it you reworded it all to make yourself seem innocent. forgiven namaste

You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Hasn't improved at all.

New model Yank rifles were not compatible in calibre and breech.... apart from the M-37 Yank and P-14 British, often made in India and a more accurate rifle than a standard SMLE - the first being .308 and the second .303, but such a minor difference in rounds - if handled carefully, didn't matter that much.  I had an M-37 with scope and it fired .303 just fine. Just don't leave an expended cartridge to cool in the breech and don't use the high powered Vickers gun boat-tailed ammunition - plays havoc with the mechanism, which is not new, you understand.

You saw some in action in The Pacific series - Guadalcanal - those bolt actions the Marines used.  Many support troops still had them on D-Day 1944, and some preferred them for their accuracy even in Korea for the Whispering Deaths.  They are still used today as sniper rifles.

So many things called M-37 around these days you'll get confused.

This is the beast right here - top loading five round mag, Mauser action, heavier barrel than the SMLE, pop-up round aperture rear sight:-

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/REL/05764/screen/3832351.JPG

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 11:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 9:31pm: No Brian - I mentioned broomsticks and you went off the deep end as though I had made up lies. When I found 2 links 2 prove it you reworded it all to make yourself seem innocent. forgiven namaste You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian has taken his bat and ball and gone home to cry to his mama.   ;D

More like a senophile........

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2024 at 6:01pm:

So you don't support Keating? You do support buying 8 nuke subs at 9 times the correct price?

Keating last stood for office in 1996 the same year that a great disaster took office.

There has been nothing to support Keating for since 1996 ? He isn't relevant.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 12^th, 2024 at 7:24am:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 11:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 9:31pm: No Brian - I mentioned broomsticks and you went off the deep end as though I had made up lies. When I found 2 links 2 prove it you reworded it all to make yourself seem innocent. forgiven namaste You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Brian has taken his bat and ball and gone home to cry to his mama.   ;D

Quote:

taken his bat

Would that be his bat called Bobby as in Bobby the bat ?

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 11:28pm:

You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Sometimes we need those right-wing pro-American Christian fundamentalist, allegedly closeted homosexual, tourists to keep these forums interesting.

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 14^th, 2024 at 12:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 11:28pm: You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Sometimes we need those right-wing pro-American Christian fundamentalist, allegedly closeted homosexual, tourists to keep these forums interesting.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/164/193/332/original/3f68c974c8d7af4e.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11^th, 2024 at 11:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 9:31pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 8:59pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 6:31pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 2:02pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 7:55am: Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling. When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Soldiers issued with broom sticks instead of guns Quote: To Jack's amusement they were issued with broom sticks in place of guns. The rifles were not issued until the troops were just about ready to leave Australia. *SIGH* I wish you'd pay attention.  No one has denied that broomsticks were not issued, what is being denied is Bobby's claim that this continued through the course of WWII and that the Americans supplied us with thousands of rifles and saved our bacon, Setlanta.  This is patently untrue and an example of Bobby's trolling and he wonders why he is banned from the Defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) No Brian - I mentioned broomsticks and you went off the deep end as though I had made up lies. When I found 2 links 2 prove it you reworded it all to make yourself seem innocent. forgiven namaste You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Took you a long time to realise that!

Keating was appointed to the advisory council to the Chinese Government Development Bank around 2007. It's clear where his true allegiance and loyalty lies (also where his salary is coming from), because it obviously isn't with this country. He should just move to Beijing so he can be closer to his Communist masters.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 14^th, 2024 at 1:18pm:

Keating was appointed to the advisory council to the Chinese Government Development Bank around 2007. It's clear where his true allegiance and loyalty lies (also where his salary is coming from), because it obviously isn't with this country. He should just move to Beijing so he can be closer to his Communist masters.

Keating should report himself as a foreign agent of the Chinese communist party.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 14^th, 2024 at 1:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 11:28pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 9:31pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 8:59pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 6:31pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 2:02pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 7:55am: Our soldiers did train with broomsticks instead of rifles in WW2. I want a grovelling apology from Brian for accusing me of telling myths and trolling. When did the training with broomsticks occur, Bobby?  Did it last for six years that we were involved in WWII?  Were we beholden to the Americans who supposedly supplied us with rifles?  You'll get your apology when you cease spread lies, myths and trolling.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) Soldiers issued with broom sticks instead of guns Quote: To Jack's amusement they were issued with broom sticks in place of guns. The rifles were not issued until the troops were just about ready to leave Australia. *SIGH* I wish you'd pay attention.  No one has denied that broomsticks were not issued, what is being denied is Bobby's claim that this continued through the course of WWII and that the Americans supplied us with thousands of rifles and saved our bacon, Setlanta.  This is patently untrue and an example of Bobby's trolling and he wonders why he is banned from the Defence forum.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::) No Brian - I mentioned broomsticks and you went off the deep end as though I had made up lies. When I found 2 links 2 prove it you reworded it all to make yourself seem innocent. forgiven namaste You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Took you a long time to realise that!

I was giving him enough rope so he could hang himself with it, Monk. He did so. Tsk, tsk, tsk..  ::) ::)

Oh dear, you will set the idiot off mentioning “rope.”

'"Taiwan is Chinese real estate "

Paul Keating.

This bloke sold our manufacturing out to the Chinese and now seems perfectly happy to see them invade Tawain.

I have no issues with China per say but Tawain isn't China.

Paul Keating is a idiot and fool and I rate him one the worse prime minister in Australia right  after the drunk Bob Hawk.

I can only wonder how many brown paper bags of Chinese bribes were delivered under his government?

To directly answer freediver question.

No I don't believe anything Paul Keating said and looking forward to the inevitable Bob Carr jumping on the bandwagon in advance of his comments I trust him even less.

.

---

Daves2017 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2024 at 4:35pm:

'"Taiwan is Chinese real estate " Paul Keating. This bloke sold our manufacturing out to the Chinese and now seems perfectly happy to see them invade Tawain. I have no issues with China per say but Tawain isn't China. Paul Keating is a idiot and fool and I rate him one the worse prime minister in Australia right  after the drunk Bob Hawk. I can only wonder how many brown paper bags of Chinese bribes were delivered under his government? To directly answer freediver question. No I don't believe anything Paul Keating said and looking forward to the inevitable Bob Carr jumping on the bandwagon in advance of his comments I trust him even less.

Paul Keating is the guy in that movie Red Dawn who used to be the town mayor or something but ended up in an invaders' uniform helping them pick off anyone who might cause them trouble during their occupation. I could just see Keating doing this if China ever invaded Australia. Seriously, I have no doubt he'd betray the lot of us in a heartbeat. That's how twisted his mind is.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 14^th, 2024 at 12:14pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 14th, 2024 at 12:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 11:28pm: You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Sometimes we need those right-wing pro-American Christian fundamentalist, allegedly closeted homosexual, tourists to keep these forums interesting. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/164/193/332/original/3f68c974c8d7af4e.jpg

That is so gay, Bobby.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 14^th, 2024 at 1:25pm:

Oh dear, you will set the idiot off mentioning “rope.”

Soap on a rope is not popular with Bobby.

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 14^th, 2024 at 11:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 14th, 2024 at 12:14pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 14th, 2024 at 12:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 11:28pm: You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Sometimes we need those right-wing pro-American Christian fundamentalist, allegedly closeted homosexual, tourists to keep these forums interesting. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/164/193/332/original/3f68c974c8d7af4e.jpg That is so gay, Bobby.

You are seeing gay things when there is nothing to see.   :-[

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/164/193/332/original/3f68c974c8d7af4e.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2024 at 7:39am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 14th, 2024 at 11:23pm: Bobby. wrote on Aug 14th, 2024 at 12:14pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Aug 14th, 2024 at 12:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2024 at 11:28pm: You are a liar and a troll, Bobby.  Run along,  i am finished with you.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Sometimes we need those right-wing pro-American Christian fundamentalist, allegedly closeted homosexual, tourists to keep these forums interesting. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/164/193/332/original/3f68c974c8d7af4e.jpg That is so gay, Bobby. You are seeing gay things when there is nothing to see.   :-[ https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/164/193/332/original/3f68c974c8d7af4e.jpg

Does that doorway you keep posting look similar to the vagina of your girlfriend/wife?

Of course, you are under no obligation to answer the question in my last post. However, think of that doorway to the church as the 'opening' to the woman's soul.