VJ Day (Victory over Japan)

[scumdog]

a PM who, with all due respect, has a better grasp of the realities of power than you.

Hope it's better than her grasp of the realities of speeding!

(sorry, thread hi-jack)

[Oscar]

John, while I respect your political opinions, and share your sentiments about the significance of the sacrifices made in World War II, I think that your attempt to link today's foreign and military policies with the situation 60 years ago amounts to little more than a gratuitous dig at a PM who, with all due respect, has a better grasp of the realities of power than you.

Whereas I agree there is no comparison between VJ Day and today's situation, I cannot agree that the PM has a grasp of the realities of the world situation other than that concocted for local consumption (I think "big noting on the world" stage was mentioned). The current administration's approach to defence is cynical and shameful, no to mention down right impractical. We have LAV-3's that we can't take anywhere, two Frigates (we need six) that would be state of the art if we could afford to equip them (no AA or missile defence systems) and a joke of an air force.

If this afternoon an incoming trans-tasman 767 is hijacked and pointed at Ericsson Stadium, what can the RNZAF do about it? If Fiji has another coup and it ends in civil war, how do we get our troops there? What about the LAV-3s?

[Indoo]

yes.. a few assclowns own guns over there.. yes innocents die and get injured every year.. but i would rather have them then not have them.

I think its now well in excess of 30,000 people per year dieing gun-related deaths. Even taking out the suicides etc thats still a hell of alot.

[Hitcher]

I think its now well in excess of 30,000 people per year dieing gun-related deaths. Even taking out the suicides etc thats still a hell of alot.

Americans get no sympathy from me for things like the Columbine killings. If they insist on living with few gun controls, that's the price that goes with it.

[Timber020]

I think NZ does need to keep its military in good form but keeping at a level that would make the US happy would require money NZ simply doesnt have to spend.
Part of the great thing about the US army is that it creates so much industry in the US. 95% of their gear is made in the US so it helps their economy, NZ would have to buy 95% of there gear from overseas, big fat waste of money that would just make other nations richer.

[TwoSeven]

Actually, only a small percentage of their equipment is made in the US, they outsource most of it.

But it does raise a couple of good points. Why the heck aint NZ picking up on the outsourcing deals ?

The other point is, combat troops aside, 70% of the armed forces here are not front line facing. So why an earth aint they profiteering from leveraging civilian industries like they do overseas.

Some countries have leveraged the technical abilities of their own armed forces that they almost turn a profit out of it.

[MikeL]

If this afternoon an incoming trans-tasman 767 is hijacked and pointed at Ericsson Stadium, what can the RNZAF do about it?

Probably about as much as the USAF was able to do on 9/11...

I know that the PM's approach - not spending zillions of dollars on futile attempts to defend the country, but solid diplomacy to reduce the risk of becoming a target - causes apoplectic fits among those who see all the answers to present problems in yesterday's policies. But sometimes the past is not a reliable guide to the future.

And have the billions of Australian dollars poured into the RAAF increased the security of our trans-Tasman neighbours? They may well be able to repel an invasion, but what about the bomb that sooner or later will explode at Circular Quay ?

[SARGE]

A bit of creative definition by some lawyers there. How can the entire population be defined as a militia?
And apart from that, when has the US ever been invaded. It's time that amendment was repealed for the sake of the populations mental health. (and physical)

yes lou.. believe it or not .. the entire population IS the militia..thats how the founding fathers intended it.. thats how it is.... thats WHY the US has never been the subject of a military invasion... because they realize that the citizens are armed...also.. this law is there to protect the citizens from a dictatorship..i believe that one of the first things that Adolph Hitler did was to outlaw guns.. wasnt that great for the people?..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

i personally am the owner of quite a collection of semi-auto and auto weapons ( fully licensed to do so) ..i have a shotgun that my Great grandfather owned and my son will inherit all my weapons when i go

It's time that amendment was repealed for the sake of the populations mental health. (and physical)

heres an idea.. grab an ANZ flight to any small town in America..stand on the steps to city hall and start spouting that shit.. and while you are at it.. lets repeal the first amendment ( free speech) and freedom of the press too..thats the great thing about America.. the government cant just "repeal an Amendment"..the US Constitution is not a malleable document.. it is , for th most part, set in stone

.. kinda like your Treaty of Wango-Tango....

oh .. wait

[SARGE]

W
As for the US i believe they were invaded by the British,French and Spaniard's ? ..the Bare Arms thing simply got twisted around by rednecks who run around in the forest like little pissants with the belief the US government is out to get them

invaded by the French??..im sorry... which reality did that happen in Dr. Who?
if you are talking about the French / Indian war in 1755.. that started out as a war betewn FRANCE and ENGLAND and ended up with both of thier asses kicked and sent packing

[Lou Girardin]

A "well regulated militia" is, by no stretch of the imagination, what the US has now.
Good ole boys armed with squirrel rifles may have worked against Santa Anna, but they ain't no good now.
This amendment is probably the main thing that makes the US a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

[Oscar]

Probably about as much as the USAF was able to do on 9/11...

I know that the PM's approach - not spending zillions of dollars on futile attempts to defend the country, but solid diplomacy to reduce the risk of becoming a target - causes apoplectic fits among those who see all the answers to present problems in yesterday's policies. But sometimes the past is not a reliable guide to the future.

And have the billions of Australian dollars poured into the RAAF increased the security of our trans-Tasman neighbours? They may well be able to repel an invasion, but what about the bomb that sooner or later will explode at Circular Quay ?

That is a somewhat rose-coloured description of Helen's diplomatic style, I would've described it more as "...pissing off our long time friends and allies with weasel words intended for home consumption.."

Additionally I can't let your comment on Defense spending go, either. No, they haven't spent zillions of dollars in a futile attempt to defend the country. They've spent zillions in a futile attempt to...spend zillions, I suppose. The classic example is the LAV-3 purchase - an APC that we don't have personnel for, can't transport anywhere and that are only really fit to recover our under-equipped troops in body bags. I understand the latest modification is to tie an old mattress to the side, as these brand new vehicles can't stand a hit from a rocket propelled grenade designed fifty years ago...

[scumdog]

This amendment is probably the main thing that makes the US a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

Ahh, but the richest most powerful laughing stock

[Lou Girardin]

Ahh, but the richest most powerful laughing stock

Maybe not for long. A huge deficit. Manufacturing capacity being exported to Asia. $100 billion per year for Georges Iraq adventure.
Goerge Soros is selling his US dollar holdings.
All bad signs.

[TwoSeven]

The classic example is the LAV-3 purchase - an APC that we don't have personnel for, can't transport anywhere and that are only really fit to recover our under-equipped troops in body bags.

Hmm. Dont think any of that is actually true. Can you post links that justify this?

[scumdog]

Maybe not for long. A huge deficit. Manufacturing capacity being exported to Asia. $100 billion per year for Georges Iraq adventure.
Goerge Soros is selling his US dollar holdings.
All bad signs.

'Not for long' don't count buddy, it's like saying a successful racer 'won't be successful for long' - it's NOW that counts.