Paphitis wrote:
My arguments are based on the links I provided you from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and on the Australian Constitution.
I have dealt with those links. None say Australia was fully independent and NO longer a part of the Empire as you originally claimed. In fact, you have provided links that support what I'm saying, but you're too blind to realise it.
Paphitis wrote:
Your arguments are based on trashy wikipedia and google links....
Google links that shortlist various other links and respectable websites proving what I say. It is easier than just listing them all myself. None of which you have been able to comment on. I only use Wikipedia links when the quote I'm using is cross-referenced by independent sources. Your links don't even support what you are arguing.
Paphitis wrote:
You have attacked Australia's sovereignty when I kindly requested that you do not link the ANZACs as British, because Australia and the AIF was present at that campaign as a nation in its own right just like any other. You choose to ignore or belittle this...
NO I HAVE NOT! I know Australia is a sovereign country! However, back in 1914, it was a part of the Empire! Simple as that. Every link on the subject that has been posted confirms this. Whether it was equal within the Empire or not is irrelevant, the fact is it was in it!
Paphitis wrote:
The AIF was not part of the Imperial Forces you wombat. The AIF was a completely sovereign and separate military force as Australia was independent in 1901. Cypriots were part of the "Imperial Forces" in WW2, Australians were not part of the Empire's Imperial Military in WW1 or WW2, as our AIF was completely separate.
ANZAC were separate from British Forces, yes! I never denied this. I said they were Empire Forces, which they were. Hence, IMPERIAL!
Paphitis wrote:
Stop playing games Simon, because Australia was an independent nation in 1901, and you still ignore the links I provided you from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Constitution.
I suggest you read your crappy links again...
NO link you have provided states that Australia was not part of the Empire after 1901, and completely independent.
NOT ONE. Whereas, I have provided several links, all which positively CONFIRM that Australia was still a part of the Empire in 1914! So whose links are crappy?
Paphitis wrote:
This is nothing but typical arrogance.
Australians are not British settlers. Less than 1,000,000 Australians were born in Britain, so how the hell can they be "British settlers"?
And yes, Aussies don't like the Poms very much, even those that admit to some English inheritance, so we are racist and with good reason it would appear.
Don't act stupid (unless of course you can't help it!)
The majority of Australians were settlers from Britain. Like I said, I'm sorry if you don't like facts, but racists like anybody else have no power over them. The Australians have a jocular rivalry with the British. Just like the English have with the Scots. Some people like yourself jump on the bandwagon and twist it as spiteful racism. Well, I am sorry to disappoint you, but it does not extend to the racist tendencies which you have now admitted to having, for the majority at least.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
Explain this to me Paphitis, because what you wrote above really made me laugh. You are in fact backtracking and now stating that Australia was part of the Empire. So how can they be independent and part of the Empire at the same time? They were an independent PART of the Empire, yes, but not independent FROM the Empire. This is where you are tying yourself up in knots. You keep banging on about the Crown, but Britain still had extensive rights in Australia after 1901. Australia's forces were Imperial (i.e. Empire) Forces!
Paphitis wrote:
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa were part of the empire as independent states, not as subjects. These countries had their own respective Crown or Monarch. Do not confuse these countries with other subject nations of the Crown such as Cyprus prior to 1960. Cyprus was a British subject whilst Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were not. BIG DIFFERANCE.
HERE IS YOUR ADMISSION. THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN.
AUSTRALIA WAS PART OF THE EMPIRE, NOT INDEPENDENT FROM IT. YOU SAID ORIGINALLY THAT AUSTRALA WAS NOT PART OF THE EMPIRE. YOU HAVE BEEN BACKTRACKING EVER SINCE. THEY WERE NOT FULLY INDEPENDENT, BUT SEMI-AUTONOMOUS. THIS IS WHY THE BRITISH RETAINED VARIOUS LEGISLATIVE RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA. IF AUSTRALIA BECAME FULLY INDEPENDENT IN 1901, WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST ABOLISH ALL OF BRITAIN'S RIGHTS? THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE IT WASN'T! THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
Simon wrote:
What you post above actually proves what I have been saying all along. Australia was self-governing, but not fully independent. For if it was fully independent, why would Western Australia even bother Britain with it? This is not the actions of an independent nation. Britain refused to intervene because it made Australia self-governing and it was an internal Australian matter! Read below:
Paphitis wrote:
Please try to understand what I posted. It was The Commonwealth of Australia that requested intervention from its OWN crown to prevent Western Australia from severing ties from the Federation.
Stop acting stupid Paphitis. The British Government acts on behalf of the Crown. So they were effectively asking the British Government. That sounds like theoretical/ceremonial independence to me!
Simon wrote:
Quote:
"Between 1855 and 1890, the six colonies individually gained responsible government, managing most of their own affairs while remaining part of the British Empire. The Colonial Office in London retained control of some matters, notably foreign affairs, defence, and international shipping. On 1 January 1901, federation of the colonies was achieved after a decade of planning, consultation, and voting. The Commonwealth of Australia was born and it became a dominion of the British Empire in 1907. The Federal Capital Territory (later renamed the Australian Capital Territory) was formed from a part of New South Wales in 1911 to provide a location for the proposed new federal capital of Canberra. (Melbourne was the temporary seat of government from 1901 to 1927 while Canberra was being constructed.) The Northern Territory was transferred from the control of the South Australian government to the Commonwealth in 1911".
It became a dominion in 1907, not 1901. Another error on your behalf. Again I ask, how was Australia fully independent when it was a dominion "OF" the Empire. It was "of" the Empire, so how is it fully separate from it, i.e. independent?
Paphitis wrote:
Exactly!
The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on 01 Jan 01. This is the day Australia became completely independent. It was still part of the Empire, but not a subject, because Australia at the time wanted to be part of it by retaining the Crown as head of state, and in 1907 its status was upgraded as a Dominion within that Empire.
How can it be completely independent (from the Empire) and still part of the Empire at the same time! You defy logic!
I never mentioned anything about 'subjects' it is irrelevant to full independence (i.e. separation).
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
The Statute of Westminster only removed the last "theoretical" avenues in which Britain could intervene within Australian affairs, and a further Statute was required in 1986, because "theoretically", Britain still had the ability to intervene and legislate for any Australian State (former colonies) within the Federation and undermine the Commonwealth of Australia (Federal).
Simon wrote:
Quote:
The Treaty of Westminster was British involvement in Australian affairs. It gave Australia legislative independence. Australia did not even have proper legislative independence before 1931, yet you want to tell me it was fully independent and separate from the Empire.
Paphitis wrote:
The Statute of Westminster was no such thing.
There is no British involvement on Australian Affairs unless the Federal Parliament allowed it. The Statute was ratified in 1942, not 1931, by Australia's Parliament. Australia did not have to ratify it if it didn't want to. From 1901, it was not Self Governance that Australia had, it was independence and Australia's first Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton was sworn in on 01 Jan 1901.
Legislative independence was achieved in 1901, as ALL laws passed in Australia were ratified by Federal Parliament. Britain had no authority to ratify anything on Australia's behalf.
The British legislated to give Australia legislative independence! So how is that not legislating regarding Australia's affairs!? Australia had to ratify it because Britain made it self-governing, so Britain had no need to force it upon them. If it didn't ratify it, it wouldn't even have full legislative independence!! This is confirmed in the link I have provided for you! Instead of just contradicting it, provide evidence that it is wrong, otherwise you just sound silly and your argument groundless.
Simon wrote:
Everyone in Australia knows it, and yet you cannot provide one link that says it. This article states the Commonwealth of Australia and its democracy was born. I never disputed this. What it it not saying is that this meant all ties were severed with the British Empire, because they weren't! You have even posted links that confirm this!
Paphitis wrote:
I posted links from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
No link that you provided states that Australia became fully independent from the Empire which you claimed. Even though you now say it was part of the Empire?
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
In fact, Australia has ALWAYS been more democratic than Britain itself, because The Commonwealth of Australia has its OWN Constitution (since 1901) and Britain doesn't even have that!
Simon wrote:
Quote:
Britain DOES have a constitution. What it doesn't have is a codified constitution, i.e. codified in one document, because its democracy never developed that way. Magna Carta and various other British constitutional documents are the basis of many constitutions around the world, including the American one. The British Parliamentary system and been copied around the world, and Britain has helped establish many democracies, including Australia's! So get off your high horse please!
Paphitis wrote:
We all know Britain does not have a codified Constitution in order to maintain its "establishment" and thank heavens Australia never followed your lead, because Th Australian Constitution was also moulded on The Constitution of The United States, and was developed by Australians because the fact of the matter is, Britain never even had a Constitution so how the hell could Britain develop Australia's Constitution?
And we also know Britain's record at creating Constitutions and "democracies". They did develop the Cypriot Constitution after all, and now look what happened. Face it Simon, Britain's incompetence is legendary throughout history...
Do you even read what I write? You ignore my argument and repeat your faulty facts. You might as well argue with yourself.
BRITAIN DOES HAVE A CONSTITUTION. I even named one of the constitutional documents, Magna Carta, one of the most famous constitutional documents in the world. I'll name another one, the Bill of Rights. Both of which are far older than Australia.
What it doesn't have is a Constitution codified in one place. I don't think it was so much British incompetence when it came to the Cypriot Constitution, but more, British machinations. But let's no get into all that as it's irrelevant.
Paphitis wrote:
There were no vestigial links to the British Parliament, but the Australian States within the Federation had remnant laws within their Constitutions which could potentially allow Britain to exercise some power over them, thus undermining The Commonwealth of Australia. The Australia Act was ratified to nullify these remnant laws which were dormant for 80 years.
You still can't provide me with one Act Britain imposed on Australia can you?
The British Parliament retained the power to legislate for Australia and Australia fought for the Empire under British command during WWI. Australia was a dominion of the Empire. This is not full independence.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
Australia was federated "under the British crown" which back then meant something. Today is doesn't. The above also confirms that Australia was only "recognised as coequal with the British" at the SECOND Balfour Convention, which was in 1926, AFTER WW1. Two points hear, "recognised coequal". Well if Australia was fully independent and separate from the Empire, why did it have to worry about being equal with the British? Secondly, this by implication means that before 1927, Australia was regarded as subordinate to the British. It is ok, I'm not expecting an apology.
Paphitis wrote:
The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 as an independent nation and with the British Crown as the head of state. The Crown's role back then was purely ceremonial as it is in the UK. Nothing has changed other than the fact that the British Crown was replaced by the Australian Crown.
With regards to the Balfour Convention, you need to get you facts right.
The Balfour Convention (1926) - This document from the 1926 Imperial Conference declares the United Kingdom and its Dominions equal in status in all matters of internal and external affairs. This replaced the principle of a hierarchical relationship with one of 'autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status ... and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations'.
This was only applied to the ceremonial British Crown and the Empire, which was then replaced by the Australian Crown to signify this equal status, but Australia was already a nation in its own right from 1901 with this British Crown as head of state, later to transform into the Australian Crown to signify ceremonial equal status within the empire.
The above has absolutely no bearing on anything Simon, as Australia was a free and independent nation on 1901. And as a nation, it went to WAR in Gallipoli on its own accord, and not as part of any British Imperial Force. The AIF was completely separate, Australia had its own Prime minister, Parliament, was already engaging in Foreign Affairs and Gallipoli signified "the coming of age" of the young nation, because it was at War as an independent nation and not as a component of The British Empire.
Gallipoli and WW1 was the first war Australia had as an independent nation. Australians did serve in other wars, such as the Boer War, but back then Australian Soldiers were a mere component or regiment of the British Empire, but that was not the case in Gallipoli. And this is why the ANZACS and the AIF are not to be categorised as British, and no one apart from you does this.
Balfour opened the first meeting of the Committee by stating that the 1914–18 war had left the Empire 'unexplained and undefined' a situation complicated by the role of the Dominions 'in framing and signing the Treaty'.
Firstly, Australia was federated "under the British monarch" not under its own Crown as you originally claimed. That came later. I believe you've corrected yourself.
The Crown was ceremonial back then, that was not my point. My point was being under the British Crown was not ceremonial back then. It meant that Britain had real powers in Australia which it could have used.
The rest of what you typed is either repitition (i.e. about the Parliament etc) that hasn't addressed my point and which I have already answered, or you're back onto Australia being fully independent in 1901, which no link you have provided has proved. You told me to get my facts straight, yet you haven't posted anything that contradicts it. Read this carefully:
"Under the second Balfour Declaration, the federal government (of Australia) was regarded as coequal with (and not subordinate to) the British and other Dominion governments, and this was given formal legal recognition in 1942 (when the Statute of Westminster was retroactively adopted to the commencement of the Second World War 1939)".
This clearly backs my argument, which still stands.
Simon wrote:
With regards to Australia's forces, the clue is in IMPERIAL. If they were imperial forces, they were obviously forces of the Empire. Not independent. Plus these forces were under BRITISH COMMAND. THIS SAYS IT ALL. I wish you wouldn't continue going around in circles on things I've clearly refuted.
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
The fact that Australia is a Dominions to this very day, should also say something to you sunshine. Having Australian commanders is a prerequisite to success and this is proven throughout history! Because every single time the British and especially the Americans have their finger in the pie, we have a disaster on our hands. So stay away from our ADF you incompetent nincompoops, because you are a danger to our safety and were a danger to our AIF in the past!
Our status has not changed within this so called non existent Empire.
Simon wrote:
I have already dealt with this above. You cannot compare today, when Britain has no Empire, to back then, when it did, and say "Dominion" means the same thing. HERE, THIS IS WHAT WAS, AND IS NOW, MEANT BY DOMINION
"A dominion, often Dominion,[1] refers to one of a group of semi-autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, constituting the British Empire and British Commonwealth, from the late 19th century.[2] They included (at varying times) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. After 1948, the term was used to denote independent nations that retained the British monarch as head of state; these included India, Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Kenya."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion KEY WORDS BEING SEMI-AUTONOMOUS, WHICH INCLUDES AUSTRALIA. AFTER 1948, THE TERM 'DOMINION' WAS USED TO DENOTE INDEPENDENT NATIONS. NOT BEFORE. UNDERSTAND?
Paphitis wrote:
Read you link again!
A dominion, often Dominion,[1] refers to one of a group of semi-autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, constituting the British Empire and British Commonwealth, from the late 19th century.[2] They included (at varying times) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State.
As your link clearly states, the states were only semi autonomous" in the late 19th century. This is certainly the case with the Australian Colonies, as they were semi autonomous as early as the 1850s, until they formed The Commonwealth of Australia in 1901....
YOU NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. IT SAYS FROM THE LATE 19TH CENTURY, I.E. FROM THEN AND ONWARDS. This clearly defeats your original argument about the term 'Dominion'.
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
Australian Armed Forces were defined as "Imperial" because by default Australia was ALSO deemed to have an EMPIRE. Technically, all British subjects were also the subjects of the Dominion Powers (Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa etc) because we shared a Crown which ruled over the Empire, and this Crown was not just Great Britain's but was also the Crown of the Dominion Powers. In other words, Australia's Crown, Canada's Crown etc etc ruled over the Empire's "subjects"!
Simon wrote:
Quote:
Australia was deemed to be PART of the Empire, that is why "Imperial" was used. British subjects were subjects of the same Empire that Australia was a part of. All this is yet more proof that Australia was not independent of the Empire!
Paphitis wrote:
The only thing this proves is that Australia was an independent nation within the Empire and this is why Australia was able to raise its own Army, Air Force and Navy (AIF) and go to war as a nation for the first time. This is a fact!
How can you be independent from the Empire within the Empire? As I said, you make no sense. All I was saying was that Australia was not independent from the Empire. You originally denied this, you then seemed to accept this, and now you're trying to do both at once!
Simon wrote:
Quote:
You then proceed to tell me the statistics of Australia. The funny thing is, you reply as if you refuted what I said, but actually you supported my statement. In every area, Australia was ranked lower than Britain. A few corrections: Australia is NOT the 6th biggest defense spender, nowhere near. It is 14th. It is also the 14th largest economy measured by GDP. PPP is not an accurate way to measure the size of an economy. The preferred method by most is GDP (nominal).
Paphitis wrote:
Please read again!
This is what I said:
Quote:
If that is the case, then Australian GDP is 40% the size of Britain's and yet Australia's population is a mere 21 million compared to Britain's 63 million. So the magnitude of the Australian Economy outstrips the magnitude of Britain's economy on a per capita basis, and this is the preferred option (per capita) of measuring GDP output when comparing different economies, and not GDP (nominal) as you would then not be comparing apples with apples.
I stated that Australia is a far richer and larger economy than Britan on a per capita basis and made no mention of nominal GDP...
And I said you do not judge the size of a nation's economy like this! Australia does not have a larger economy than Britain. Otherwise, Liechenstein has a larger economy than America!
Simon wrote:
Quote:
This desperate attempt to try to get one up on Britain is hilarious! What a clown! Britain's economy is more than twice as big, end of story. Britain has 61 million people by the way.
Paphitis wrote:
That's a bit rich considering that what you posted supports my argument that Australia is richer than the UK, and packs a bigger punch since our population is a third of yours...
If you want to talk about whose people are richer, read and weap Aussie boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... nal_incomeBritain is 4th highest per capita personal income.
Australia is 10th.
Your economy certainly does not pack a bigger punch. The UK economy is far larger and more important.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
Then you mention aircraft carriers. Firstly, can you point me to a credible link that states Australia is building 2 carriers, because I know of no such procurement programme. I suspect this is just more assumptions by you. In any event, the UK has 2 carriers, not 1 (they did have 3 but 1 has recently been decommissioned). So Australia will have an equal amount IF they do build 2 carriers. However, the UK is building 2 huge supercarriers, displacing 65,000 tons each. The Australian Navy cannot hope to compete with the Royal Navy. So don't even go there, I will rip you to shreds. Britain have recently developed the best air defence ships in the world, the Type 45 Destroyer, not even the Americans have anything like it. The Royal Navy is a bluewater navy that can project power around the globe. Only the Americans, French and possibly Russians can currently say the same thing. Australia certainly do not have this capability.
Paphitis wrote:
The Canberra Class will be fitted with a catapult for launching aircraft, when they are upgraded.
If you look at the picture below, the Canberra Class is designed with a sky ramp to launch aircraft when the catapult is fitted. In this way, Australia will end up with 2 Light Aircraft carriers without upsetting the opposition or causing another political rucus.
Like I said, they are Helicopter Landing Docks. The ships will not have the radar to operate fighter jets. (Read below your own quote from Wikipedia by the way!). They are not aircraft carriers! Nowhere near as capable as the British Carriers, which was my original point and still stands.
Paphitis wrote:
The Canberra class ships will provide the Australian Defence Force with greatly increased naval aviation capabilities, with each ship carrying up to 24 Army and Navy helicopters.[1] These aircraft will include Army and Navy MRH-90 transport helicopters, Army Tiger helicopter gunships and Navy S-70B Seahawk anti-submarine helicopters. Although the ships will be fitted with a ski-ramp and could be certified to operate STOVL aircraft, they will not be fitted with the radar needed to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
Yes, this confirms what I am saying. They will carry helicopters. Like HMS Ocean does.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ARTICLE STATES THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OPERATE FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT, WHICH MEANS THEY ARE NOT CARRIERS IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD.Paphitis wrote:
The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's recommendation was made on the grounds that STOVL aircraft would provide deployed Australian forces with air defence and close air support. Despite the slight reduction in range and payload of STOVL F-35B compared to CTOL F-35A (and C) aircraft, they are inherently flexible in terms of operation, and can provide organic close air support right at the edge of the Field of Battle Area, which land based aircraft cannot do. An order of F-35Bs for the Canberra class could form part of the planned order of up to 100 F-35s for the Royal Australian Air Force. The Navantia ships have a ski-jump included as part of the basic design, and are designed to operate and sustain a mixed jet and helicopter carrier air group of up to 36 aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_c ... opter_Dock
YOU NEED TO READ THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE AGAIN. THIS SHIPS DO NOT HAVE THE RADAR TO FLY FIGHTER JETS IN THEIR CURRENT FORM. THE COMMITTEE MENTIONED ABOVE RECOMMENDS THAT THE F-35B BE USED ON THE SHIPS, BUT THE PROPOSAL HAS YET TO BE TAKEN UP. THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE STATES:"While the tender released for the Canberra class did not specify that the ships needed to be capable of operating STOVL fixed wing aircraft,[8] it has been proposed that such a capacity be included in the final design."
They did not even specify in the tender that it had to carry fixed-wing aircraft. So these ships cannot yet be classified as even "light carriers". In any event, they will be nowehere near as capable as these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Eliz ... ft_carrier So your original assertion that Australia's naval force will soon surpass the British once is nonsense.
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
Australia too is considered a strategic power due to the Collins Class(most advance conventional subs) and F-111 etc. And we have been projecting our power for decades now. In fact, it is well and trully proven that the ADF is far more competent than both you and the US.
If you want to now how to really fight a war, then mimmick the ADF and what it did in East Timor. I believe that only the Israeli's are capable to match or even outperform the Aussies with clever no nonsense strategy and psychological warfare.
Simon wrote
Quote:
This is pure nationalist nonsense. Yes Australia is a regional power, in the Pacific. Britain historically, and still today, can project power around the globe. Its power projection capabilities are second only to the US. I can't even believe you're trying to compare the two.
Paphitis wrote:
Britain couldn't even defeat 300 Cypriot villagers and you're telling me that Britain is a superpower.....
Face it Simon...It's over....Britain is a mere shadow of her former self, and right now the Dominions (Australia and Canada) are rising and will supersede you as you have become irrelevent...
You're confusing projecting power with long occupations of foreign territory. The British perfectly demonstrated its power projecton capabilities in the Falklands War. Australia wouldn't of had a prayer winning such a war so far away from home.
I know the Empire is over. I have never suggested otherwise, so stop implying that I have. Britain is a shadow of the superpower it was, I agree, but to call it irrelevant is simply stupid and precipitates your loss of credibility.
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
There are no Aussies that regard Britain as a mother country. People who fantasise about "mother countries" are immature fucks (apart from those that only recognise cultural similarities). There are many Cypriots like that and you maybe one of them.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
How can an idiot like you speak for every single Australian? I have heard this term from an Australian's mouth! So there you go, they must be "immature fucks" according to you .
Paphitis wrote:
Simon, you accuse me of insulting you when you clearly have been insulting me by calling me all sorts of names, but worse of all, you have been insulting my Australia, which has clearly reached a level beyond Britain's reach.
I only started insulting you AFTER you insulted me more than once. I have never insulted Australia. I have shown you links to map after map that confirms Australia was part of the British Empire in 1914. This is all I've ever said. You started insulting Britain because your racist. I have even said I like Australia, whilst you continue your racist tirade against Britain.
Paphitis wrote:
We are richer, have better weather, are egalitarian, more democratic and liberal, beat you in all sports, have superior Armed Forces and Intelligence, and have better looking women than you.
And to top it all off, we have to beat you pricks off with a stick, because you know that Britain just can't compare to Australia in anything...
Richer? I have already disproved. More billionaires living in London alone than the whole of Australia. Why don't they all move there if Australia is so great?
Weather? I can't argue with.
I'm not going to get into the rest because I could list for hours areas where Britain exceeds Australia but it is petty, childish and pointless.
EXCEPT SPORT...
Because England are far better at football for starters. The Ashes Test is 1-1 and England have lost two of their best players out injured. England have had more success at the last two Rugby World Cups as well. Oh and I forgot, England invented all these sports in their modern forms...
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
But you have definitely proven yourself to be a great Imperialist, so well done sunshine!
Simon wrote:
Quote:
And you have definitely proved what a racist you are.
Paphitis wrote:
There you go again!
There you go again too! Oh I forgot, 'imperialist' is not meant to be insulting.
Paphitis wrote:
Let me tell you one thing Simon, The British Officer Corp is well renowned in the ADF as being the most arrogant, pompous, pretentious little gentleman's club, and the ADF snubs its nose at them.
I have met many, and I can tell you, it is they that are racist. They are well renowned for their bastardry, and only deserve to be treated with contempt.
I don't believe they are racist. That is far too much of a generalisation even for you. No doubt some may be, as in any Armed Forces. This is more about a different style and culture, rather than anything else. The British Officers have posh accents with a 'stiff upper lip' attitude and some Australians interpret it is pomposity. Many of the British Officers are outstanding. You can't tarnish everyone with the same brush. If any were reading this, I'm sure they'd want to slap you for doing so.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
The Royal Marines undertake the longest period of training in NATO. The Paras are legendary. The SAS are regarded as the best on earth. The Gurkhas bravery is the stuff of legend.
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
OUR SAS is regarded as the best as well. So who is the best then?
Simon wrote:
Quote:
The Australian SAS is based on the British SAS. Traditionally, the British SAS has been referred to as the best in the world.
Paphitis wrote:
So what?
The Australian SAS is still just that - Australian SAS. And they are elite and formidable and they have more experience than the British SAS.
My money is with the Aussie SAS any day. As I told you before:
The British and American Armed Forces can stay right away from the superior ADF, because we don't like you guy's behaving like Hollywood Rambo's endangering our men and women in suicide missions and futile wars!
So what? I'm showing you how the British SAS were traditionally the best as others modelled themselves on it, including the Australians and the Americans!
I never said they weren't Australian! You need to get over this psychotic paranoia that others want to take Australia's troops away from them! Get some help please!
How can they have more experience than the British SAS when the British SAS is older! The British SAS is formidable and elite as well! An American Delta Force operate once said, and I quote: "There is the SAS (British) and then there's the rest".
They are known by most as the best Paphitis. Most people will tell you this. I wouldn't expect your money to be anywhere else, especially considering your hatred of the British.
Paphitis wrote:
Your incompetence throughout history is legendary, apart from a few isolated instances.
Simon wrote:
What a load of nonsense. What wars have Britain lost? They have taken casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan due to ongoing occupations. Any Forces would lose troops this way. None of these enemies take Britain head on, because they lose everytime in conventional war!
Paphitis wrote:
I'm not talking about casualties.
I'm talking about the British and the Americans losing these wars through utter stupidity. It is very difficult fighting against guerilla Insurgents with a conventional army. We are sick of all this American/British macho rambo crap.
The British and Americans should have decided to place all their forces under Australian Command, because this is the only way you would have a chance of winning these wars....
Yeah right...
Britain and America has far more experience winning wars than the Aussies. The British and Americans haven't lost in Iraq or Afghanistan (where they have just taken more ground off the Taliban). The political leaders in Britain are idiots because they never allowed enough troops to go there in the first place to finish the job. That was the biggest mistake. Not enough political will to do the job properly. But the Armies have not been defeated otherwise they wouldn't still be there.
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
We don't want their memory tarnished through associations with the wrong crowds...Britain needs help, so may God save the Queen, because Australia sure as hell won't from now on!
Simon wrote:
Quote:
Why do you think you have the authority to talk on behalf of Australia? You would get bitch-slapped by the monarchists in your OWN country, who voted to keep the Queen!
Paphitis wrote:
Why don't you try finding one Australian who disagrees with what I've said.
Don't worry about the Monarchists, because there are so difficult to spot. There are hardly no monarchists in Australia.
No one admits to being a Monarchist in Australia - and as you already know, the defunct Monarch will be altogether removed very soon. Our Prime Minister has already hinted at another referendum, and so the Monarch's days are numbered.
There were enough that wanted to keep the Queen in the last referendum and that's all that matters. You can twist it whichever way you like to suit yourself, the fact is Australia voted to keep the Queen. Your prediction into the future is pure speculation. Personally, I couldn't care less whether Australia keeps the Queen or not.
Simon wrote:
Quote:
P.S. I noticed you didn't comment about the links I provided which clearly included Australia in the British Empire in 1914. Wonder why?
Paphitis wrote:
PS: I notice you ignore my official Australian Federal government links and rely on wikipedia for all your information. Wonder why?
No I haven't. If you read my posts properly, you will see I replied to these links. Indeed, you commented on my replies! However, I have still not had a response regarding my links.
