It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Austraila - and their Militry

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk


I'd have to say american mad man has got a point here and by using your logic has proved it's faults. You say that the UK has better training than US troops however US troops have so much more money to burn than the UK does? yet you say that Aussie troops are worse than UK troops because we don't spend as much money as you do on the military? how odd.


uh just wonderin who said they werent good i thought it was agreed that they were good?


Originally posted by drfunk
Aussie troops are generally pretty good and while I am sure that they don't compare to what the US and UK have in resources i'm pretty sure that our training is pretty top notch.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by drfunk]

actually i would say they are quite good.
you guys have the best diesel sub captain programe in the world.
i would be honoured to serve with them mabye a little scared cause u lot are mad but honoured.




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
uh just wonderin who said they werent good i thought it was agreed that they were good?


Minime started it out by saying basically that the Australians weren't as good as US or UK forces. I said they were our equals, the only difference between the US and UK and Australia is money and population. He said this made a big difference. I countered by using the same logic in degrading UK troops in comparison to US troops since we have so much more money and a larger population (this was to demonstrate his flawed logic, not that I actually believe it).

Basically, IMO we are all on the same team, and saying "this country sucks and we rock" is stupid between allies.

Equipment however, I believe to be fair game


[edit on 25-8-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
yes Australia's involvement in East Timor was a good thing but we should also remember the efforts of all the troops all from around asia that helped in getting the country on its feet.

I was for Australia's involvement in Iraq because they were giving the people a chance at freedom and change but I was also against it because it was about oil for the Americans. It's truly sad to see when a nation goes to war for such things.



Yep.Please do not forget the Singaporean contingent which took over halfway .



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Maybe i can shed some light on this issue for you.

You can take my post for fact or fiction, makes no difference to me,
Im a middle aged man with friends & ******(blanked cos the nets not a good place reveal too much) who have served in various SPF from various countries, Many SPF mainly NZ,Ozzies & US are bound in deep friendships from actions they have seen,
Some stories from them for you all.

Delta is generally reguarded as over the top, and more guns blazing than anything else( dont take this as my statemant i understand national pride. this quote was from a american from SPF of many years)

SAS is reguarded as living lengend in the SPF world. sometimes there lengend far outways there own abilities they would be the first to openly admit they do not reguard themselfs as the best nor do they ever stop there quest for knowleadge on how to do things better)Just a footnote for you. Any operation where the SAS/SBS are involed in, the SAS/SBS has command.

SEALS are held in high reguards. not just for there abilites but for the fact when a crisis happens there are normally the nearest SPF to the target.
Seals not sure if this info is still update. the brightest recruits were sent to the SBS training school for several weeks to increase there knowleadge.

Green berets ,there orginal mission was very close to the SAS mission briefs before the onset of terrorism in the 70`s . GB are held in the highest reguards by rest of the worlds SPF. there mission is now more terrorism related there are playing catch up at present.
p.s these guys are also the most fun to go drinking with apart from british paras.

Ozzies/Nz are basically the same as Uk sas

These guys and girls(believe it or not) are the all heros. and rivally is high between them all.
Dont believe every book you read most are wrong. And SPF are more active than most realise
In reguards to the above mentioned book. At no time in afghanistan was there ever 200 sas troops there. Most was around 60/80 even iraq there was only around 120 .

Another bit of info for you all. SPF hold touraments Atleast once a year(9-11 messed the time table up slightly)
but during the life of these touraments. heres some intresting facts.

At not 1 ever have delta force every won overall.
SWAT has tho.
So has the SBS/SAS/NZ/OZ
green berets

most intresting of all. Russias ALPHA SPF was invited just after the cold war. 90/91/92 i believe it won it all 3 years it came. and has never been back since.
Since 94 SAS has been on many cross training exercises with the russians.(please dont fault there polticans orders with there own skills)



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   


our involvement in east timor was for humanitarian grounds, and we managed to prevent a massive tragedy from unfolding


i am going to have to DISAGREE with you guys about australia going into East Timor for altruistic reasons. I think they went in partially to secure half (or IS that MORE than half) of the Timor sea oil/gas resources. Heck Australia (and that goon, Downer, in particular) wouldn't even negotiate on the boundary between Timor and Australia according to the international maritime laws. So if the boundaries of the 2 countries are skewed towards the aussie - so are the oil and gas revenue.

if aussies are humanitarian they won't have waited until nearly 500,000 timorese had been exterminated befoe doing anything. remember balibo?
remember forign minister Evans drinking pink champagne mile high with Ali Alatas over the then new petroleum joint venture. remember Gough whitlam washing his hands when the invasion happened in the 70s.


[edit on 27-9-2004 by iceTman]



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Ameria, britian and australia = one empire.
Same leaders, same bloodlines.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Minime

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Minime
Australia has never really been a good army, but not as good as US and British army at least. It's still good to have them fighting.


I'm going to disagree here. There guys are every bit as good as ours (US), the difference is money and numbers. Man for man, they are our equal.


Yes, and with this "money and number's", it make's it a better army.


you say that australia has a bad army, yet we havnt lost a soldier in combat for the past 20 years, and we are on the front lines just as offen as you are. we can acctualy spend more money on training for each of our soldiers because our army is smaller than yours



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   
It was a total waste of money sending troops there.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mikethebear
 


I have to agree with you mikethebear. We dont have the numbers nor the funds that bigger countries do, leaving us less able to pump Billions upon billions into the military.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Minime
Can I just say, we have better trained troops than the US army, US army is only better because you have more men and more money. And be carful about slagging Britain off...


Says the man who chose to slag off the ADF.


A quick look at the actions of the Australian Army since federation a little over a century ago will reveal that for actions partaken in, Australian soldiers have a better win-loss-draw ratio than you do. Admittedly, we weren't decolonising or saddled with allies like the French, but the only thing we lost was Singapore and you were in charge there and contributed more troops. We, on the other hand, held Rommel at Tobruk and held the IJA at New Guinea.

As for the poster who managed to get his dates on VN arse-about, the Australian Army Training Team went in in 1962. Australian combat troops deployed, as part of US 173rd Airborne, in 1965, 1 Australian Task Force deployed in 1966 and withdrew in 1971.

Also deployed to SVN were 2 Squadron RAAF (Canberra), 9 squadron (Huey), 35 Sqn (Caribou), RAN personnel deployed as part of the EMU (Experimental Miiltary Unit) flying and servicing US Hueys under joint command and HMAS Perth and HMAS Hobart earned PUCs while on Yankee Station in 1967. HMAS Hobart lost two sailors to US missile strike. HMAS Brisbane and HMAS Vendetta (Daring class) also sailed on the gunline.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by iceTman


our involvement in east timor was for humanitarian grounds, and we managed to prevent a massive tragedy from unfolding


i am going to have to DISAGREE with you guys about australia going into East Timor for altruistic reasons. I think they went in partially to secure half (or IS that MORE than half) of the Timor sea oil/gas resources.


Yes, does look dodgy, but why don't you tell the Timorese that we didn't come to their country to save them, but to save the oil we would have got out of Indonesia anyway. I'm sure they'll decide to hate us forthwith for spending money and potential lives to stop the militias from destroying property that wasn't going to help us profit from the oil.


Heck Australia (and that goon, Downer, in particular) wouldn't even negotiate on the boundary between Timor and Australia according to the international maritime laws. So if the boundaries of the 2 countries are skewed towards the aussie - so are the oil and gas revenue.


Maritime law has zip to do with international boundaries. It's to do with exclusive economic zones (which are measured in distance from shore) and continental shelves. Which is where the government puts its oil supplies so they're out of the kids' reach...


if aussies are humanitarian they won't have waited until nearly 500,000 timorese had been exterminated befoe doing anything. remember balibo?

not really, a little young...

remember forign minister Evans drinking pink champagne mile high with Ali Alatas over the then new petroleum joint venture. remember Gough whitlam washing his hands when the invasion happened in the 70s.

Again with the age thing, but, yes, some of us do remember those things. Some of us also remember that Gareth Evans was largely responsible for the Cambodian Paris Peace Accords.

And Gough only began a policy that Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard continued. Right up until they led the international community in action. May have been first (and only) ones to recognise Indo soveriegnty, but were also first to do something about ending it.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why we deployed for a second time to Timor Leste, AFTER we'd already secured our 2/3 of the oil and gas? Where was our profit that time?

Australian troops deployed to ETimor in public in response to a humanitarian crisis in which the losers decided that if they couldn't have it, no-one could. There was no coup, there was a vote and Indonesia lost it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join