by Paphitis » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:17 am
by Simon » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:31 am
by YFred » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:22 pm
Paphitis wrote:Simon, before we go any further, please address the following:
Please tell me what you can see on the flight deck of the below Artist's Impression of the new Canberra Class Aircraft Carriers:
The fact of the matter is, the Canberra Class will be modified to take Sea Harrier STOVL and F-35s aircraft once these enter service.
by Paphitis » Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:39 pm
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.
Yes they did, but you ignore my official 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.
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!
ANZAC were separate from British Forces, yes! I never denied this. I said they were Empire Forces, which they were. Hence, IMPERIAL!
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?
No it didn't.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!
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.
:lol:
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.
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:
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!
The Australian Government also acts on behalf of the Australian Crown through the Governor General. 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?
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!
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).
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.
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.
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!
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?
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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?
Read you're 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'.
You've really stuffed up here.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"!
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!
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!
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).
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!
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.
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_income
Britain 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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?
....Your figures are for 2005, whereas my figures are for 2008.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...
All you can come up with is Football, and even at that we have beaten you... Quote:
But you have definitely proven yourself to be a great Imperialist, so well done sunshine!
Quote:
And you have definitely proved what a racist you are.
There you go again!
There you go again too! Oh I forgot, 'imperialist' is not meant to be insulting.
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.
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.
Quote:
OUR SAS is regarded as the best as well. So who is the best then?
Quote:
The Australian SAS is based on the British SAS. Traditionally, the British SAS has been referred to as the best in the world.
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".
Your incompetence throughout history is legendary, apart from a few isolated instances.
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!
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...
The Australian SAS has been in Afghanistan conducting the most dangerous missions against the Taliban and with few casualties. The Australian SAS is far better than any American special forces and is at least on par with the British SAS and may even be better. Personally, I have no doubt that the Australian SAS is probably the best in the world (serious).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!
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!
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.
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?
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.
by rotate » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:51 am
by Simon » Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:23 am
Now you have made some progress.
The Australian Military was The Australian Imperial Force (AIF), and it had absolutely nothing to do with Britain. The word "Imperial" only denotes Australia's Dominion status within the Empire and nothing more. Australia was not a subordinate country.
Quote:
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?
No it didn't.
The link I provided stated that Australia was an independent nation from 1901.
I never denied Australia was still part of the Empire in 1914, but it was completely independent and autonomous, something you can't comprehend.
No, Australia was not part of the British Empire.
Federation occurred in 1901
Australia has been an independant country since 1901. Britain has absolutely no say within Australia and Australia's role as a Dominion Power is purely ceremonial
I never denied Australia was still part of the Empire in 1914
Britain too is part of the empire. So too was Canada, Australia and NZ, but as independent nations and as Dominions of the Empire.
As I said to you before, I never stated that Australia was not part of the Empire, I only stated that the ANZACS were a separate force to the British Forces and should be recognised as such, but your arrogance does not permit you to accept these facts.
Again, as I said previously, they were all nations within the Empire! Not independent from it! I never said ANZAC were actually British Forces, but I included them under the umbrella of British Forces because I'm not going to list all the different forces and nationalities fighting for the British Empire. It's just unnecessary when it didn't at all relate to the point I was making at the time. Plus I can be lazy . Why couldn't you have just accepted this? If I had said specifically, ANZAC were British, then I could completely understand your point, but this is all very petty and childish. If it makes you happy, I will state again, ANZAC WERE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND FORCES (fighting for the British Empire ). Sorry I couldn't resist. The British had no legislative rights within Australia. The Crown had certain ceremonial duties to perform, and that was as far as it went.
Australia was fully independent on 1901, as a Crown Democracy and Federation, everyone knows this so get your facts right.
Quote:
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:
Australian Colonies were self governing from as early as the 1850s, the last achieving self Governance in the 1890s.
By 1901, ALL colonies united and formed The Commonwealth of Australia and the first Prime Minister was sworn into power.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
The Australian Government also acts on behalf of the Australian Crown through the Governor General.
We were effectively asking our Head of State, The Australian Monarch to intervene. The Australian Monarch has nothing to do with the British Government.
Furthermore, Australia's relationship is more than jocular with Britain. Most Australians don't take Britain seriously anymore. How can you when even the Brits themselves don't even respect their country. Britain has deteriorated and replaced Turkey as the "sick man of Europe"...
Australia is much closer to Canada and NZ. The US, China and India are also far more significant for us and Britain has become the irrelevant pissant country....
It was part if the empire as an independent country and a Dominion from 1907 and onwards. As my official links indicated, Australia became independent in 1901. Dominions were not subordinate.
The Statute of Westminster was legislation for Britain and not Australia. Read your link.
Australia ratified it 11 years after Britain.
Australia already had full independence and the Statute of Westminster was implemented to define the Crown's role within Australia and nothing more.
All laws passed in Australia after 1901 were passed by Federal Parliament and the Senate.
Quote:
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!
.My official links from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also stated very clearly that Australia became an independent nation in 1901
Quote:
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?
The official link I provided states that Australia became an independent nation in 1901. Therefore, Australia was at war with the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as a sovereign nation, and you tried to belittle this.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
How can you have a Constitution when it is not even codified or made official?
You're the one that stated Britain has no Constitution and even Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and trade confirmed this which is why The Australian Constitution Act has articles moulded on the Constitution of The United States.
What a disgraceful attempt to pass Britain's unofficial 'Magna Carta' as a document comparable to the sanctity of the Australian or US constitutions....
I stated from the very beginning that Britain does have a constitution. Just read above. What I said was the Constitution is not codified, in other words, it is not all written in one document. It developed incrementally. General John Monash was Australia's Commander on the peninsula. The AIF had its own chain of command but were placed under British Command at the time, hence the whole debacle at Gallipoli....
Australia had its own Crown from 1907, when it became a Dominion.
Get it right.
Quote:
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.
Australia became a Dominion in 1907.
Quote:
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.
How can Australia be subordinate to other Dominions when it was already a Dominion in 1907?
The Balfour declaration only clarified the role the Dominions were to play within the Empire and Australia was already a Dominion at that stage.
The Federal Australian Government was never subordinate to Britain as it achieved independence in 1901 and became a Dominion in 1907.
You still have not counteracted or addressed what I've been saying:
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
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'.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Read you're 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....
Quote:
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'.
You've really stuffed up here.
Read 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.
Australia was NOT under British sovereigthy from 1907, but the Australian colonies were semi autonomous before 1901.
the late 19th century. Dominion only meant independent nations much later. You haven't even addressed this. It doesn't say anything about 1901 or 1907. What about the 6 years between 1901 and 1907?FROM
It is clearly implying that the dominions were still under British sovereignty from the late 19th century and beyond, i.e. beyond 1901!Quote:
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!
As I've told you about 100 times already, Australia was still part of the Empire and technically still is, but only as an independent nation.
You need to differentiate between those that were the subjects of the Empire or semi autonomous, and those that became independant (Australia and Canada for example) whilst still maintaining the Crown.
Australia was an independant nation in 1901, but still part of the Empire and then was a dominion of the Empire from 1907 and onwards.
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).
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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!
Australia has a larger economy on a per capita basis...
This is what I said:
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.
Stop twisting things around....
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
If you want to talk about whose people are richer, read and weap Aussie boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... nal_income
Britain 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.
What a disgraceful attempt to try and pass off 2005 statistics
Oh the shame of it all Simon....
Read it and weep sunshine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
The above are 2008 figures and depict GDP per capita. Eat our dust sunshine...
PPP refers to the value of all goods and services produced within a nation in a given year divided by the average (or mid-year) population for the same year. This is different to what I posted, which was per capita personal incomes. So your 2008 figures are not an update on anything that I posted. PPP figures can be misleading, because it favours nations with smaller populations. Look at the list, the only nation with a large population in the top 15 is the US. Like I was saying, the size and power of an economy is not accurately measured per capita PPP (as you obviously thought by your statement that Australia was an economic superpower ) but by GDP (nominal). The UK economy is far more significant in the world than the Australian one. End of story.Quote:
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:
That's because the Australian Government has not worked out what will replace the F-18s. They are looking at the F-22 Raptor and the F-35. The Raptors are a possibility, but it is more probable that Australia will place orders for the F-35 and might even purchase the F-22 Raptor at a later stage. British Sea Harrier is also on the wish list.
Eventually, Australian Military chiefs willl get what they want, and the Canberra Class is easily modified into Aircraft carriers and this is what they will become down the track. The 2 ships will become the flagships of the Pacific and Indian Fleets.
The fighters they use has nothing to do with radar. They will need radar anyway, so why haven't they just come out and said the ships will have radar and be capable of carrying fighters, if this is so clearly the intention? Maybe something/someone is stopping them, which may scupper the upgrades? Maybe they will be adapted to carry fighters, but what I'm saying is that they cannot yet be classed as aircraft carriers, and they are not by any military source. Even if they are adapted, they will still be Helicopter Landing Docks that have been adapted to be used as small Carriers. Like I said, nothing to the QE Class.Quote:
"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.
The tender did not specify it, but Defence Chiefs chose to base the design on a Spanish or French Aircraft Carrier.
The only mods required are a catapult and radar, and Australia will invariably go down this path after the Ships are commissioned and an suitable Carrier born aircraft has entered into service (F-35s + Sea Harrier?) within the next 10 years.
It is inevitable that the ships will be upgraded, plus a third ship might be ordered within the next 2 years.
I mean use your brains Simon. The Canberra Class don't have a ski jump for no reason. They have it because they will become Aircraft Carriers once Australia's next generation fighter is decided (F-22 or F-35s or a combination of).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Australia too has the capability of projecting power as far as the Falklands. The RAAF and RAN has projected their power as far as the Persian Gulf for over a decade, and the Canberra Class will as well as the Collins Class provide greatly increased capability. Australia also maintains a strategic bombing capability with F-111s and KC10 Tankers. The RAAF hopes to replace the F-111 with the F-22 Raptor to maintain this capability. Orions also operate all over the world and as far as the Arctic with USAF support.
Not only this, but the ADF has been at war on 2 fronts for nearly a decade, so it is not doing too badly under the circumstances. Unfortunately (and I'm being very serious here), The ADF has been let down on many occasions by the US, first in Vietnam and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not the case with British Forces however, as their expertise and competence is respected, however your Officer Corp is just not what we would consider as ideal, and you know the reason for that.
I don't mean to boast, but the fact of the matter is, the Iraq and Afghanistan operations should have been under Australia's Command instead of American, because then these operations would have been conducted in a more sensible manner and with text book precision just like Timor was...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
I made a simple enough request that the ANZACS and the AIF not be included as part of Britain's war effort, because Australia was at war for the first time as an independent nation and you were insulting because you belittled that. Australia lost 60,000 men in WW1, and these men lost their lives for Australia (AIF) and not Britain or the British Empire. The ANZACs represent the "comming of age" as a nation for both Australia and New Zealand.
). I only included them in British Forces purely to save time whilst I made a wider point as I have said repeatedly.Federation occured in 1901, and the AIF was Australia's Military Force during WW1 and Australia was at war as a nation. Prove me wrong!
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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?
....Your figures are for 2005, whereas my figures are for 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Quote:
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...
So you can't think of anything eh? All you can come up with is Football, and even at that we have beaten you...
England has buckleys chance of winning the Ashes....
I mean you made 250 runs in 2 innings....
England were so lucky to win the draw the first test...are you guys still doing rain dances????
Check Australia's record at World Cups compared to England. I think you'll find you hardly ever make the Finals. Where are Australia in the world rankings again? I said that I could list many things. But I think this debate has already been turned into enough of a pissing contest without me listing all the areas where Britain excel over Australia, and believe me, there are many.Quote:
Quote:
But you have definitely proven yourself to be a great Imperialist, so well done sunshine!
Quote:
Quote:
And you have definitely proved what a racist you are.
Quote:
There you go again!
Quote:
There you go again too! Oh I forgot, 'imperialist' is not meant to be insulting.
What is insulting is categorising the ANZACs as British and every Aussie will tell you that!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
The British Officer Corp is a little Gentleman's Club and always has been. This is why they are given very little respect by the ADF. They are elitist and racist.
Very few are actually good blokes.... Australians are very easy going by comparison and don't have this elitist class mentality. And this is why, Aussies and Brits are fighting each other whenever their paths cross. An MPs niightmare!
The whole ADF is moddelled on the British Forces. Everything is the same, from rank, service medals and awards, tradition and ceremony, and structure.
The SAS are more experienced because nearly all of them have been at war non stop from 1998 to the present day.
It is also well known that the Australian SAS are amongst the best in the world and they have proven this in Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor, where they outperformed the British SAS.
Quote:
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.
No matter what you say, Iraq and especially Afghanistan is a futile war, because the Taliban have not yet been nuetralised and sooner or later, we have to withdraw. Afghanistan will once again be at the Taliban's mercy, just like Pakistan is as we speak.
Good of you to exclude the Australian SAS in your above comment. The Australian SAS has been in Afghanistan conducting the most dangerous missions against the Taliban and with few casualties. The Australian SAS is far better than any American special forces and is at least on par with the British SAS and may even be better. Personally, I have no doubt that the Australian SAS is probably the best in the world (serious).
Regarding who is the best, it is mere opinion and speculation. All I know is, many sources I have read traditionally place the British SAS as the best. The Australian SAS is up there and highly respected. I would put it above the Americans. But I think the British SAS have the edge. Like I said, it has served as a model for special forces around the world. Do you remember this mission?Australians didn't vote for the Monarchy. They voted to not change a very stable and functional Constitution. The electorate feared change due to a very clever campaign from a few organised Monarchists. Australians feared that our political system would be "Americanised" and that the new Constitutional Order might be less democratic and/or more unstable.
If a referendum was held right now, the Monarch would be finished. Support for republicanism is on the rise and a referendum will be held after the next Federal elections according to our Prime Minister.
Australian voters are very fickle. The 54% that voted to retain the Monarch were not monarchists, and most of them today would probably vote for a Republic.
A monarchist is someone who supports the Monarch. Very few Australians do this (probably less than 10%).
The catch cry of the clever campaign against the republic was "Don't change what is not broken"....
I didn't know the Australians felt so insecure about their great Constitution you was telling me about earlier and their democracy. Quote:
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?
Quote:
PS: I notice you ignore my official Australian Federal government links and rely on wikipedia for all your information. Wonder why?
.Quote:
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
Yes you have.
I already told you that your google and wikipedia links are trash when up against official Australian government Links which confirm to you that Australia became independent in 1901 and was a Dominion from 1907 and onwards, meaning that the Australians, and Kiwis were at Gallipoli as sovereign nations and with their own Military Force and Chain of Command....
by Simon » Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:27 am
bigOz wrote:Paphitis! I TAKE MY HAT OFF TO YOU...
Well done mate - I enjoyed reading that!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
