INDONESIAN invasion of Australia in 2010

[Raven]

Cosgrove is now a retired civilian, however it isn't new news that Indonesia
had been considered a threat, papers wrote in the 80's confirmed that, and
in the early 90's when I worked for the army, many bases in the southern
states were being relocated to the northern states, to be ready for an
Indonesian invasion, and to climate the troops to tropical weather.
--

[DYNA]

Highlandish wrote:
> Cosgrove is now a retired civilian,


A *retired* civilian? :-)
Perhaps a retired soldier, now a civilian..

--
Dyna

[charlienogun]

Raven,

Indonesia had trouble invading East Timor.

Please stop talking rubbish.

Why would Indonesia take on the USA? That is what they would be doing if they invaded Australia.

[John]

A few Indonesians managed to attack and kill Australians and other nationals including locals, at a Bali nightclub. A few Indonesians managed an attack on our embassy in Jakarta. Australia is already under attack - their fanatical mouthpieces will tell you exactly that.

Yes, at the present time only a few fanatic islamists in a population of over 250 million. But as their fanaticism grows, so do their numbers adn so will the threat.

It is early days yet and the score is 88 - nil, l but let's revisit this in about 10 years, or maybe even sooner.

Those who think that future wars will be fought by ships, tanks and planes better brush up on the latest strategies and the weaponary that is being and will be employed by our opponents.

[charlienogun]

John,

They are CALLED TERRORISTS and I believe we have them under control.

I cannot believe a grown man links the ratty ravings and mass murder of a few Fanatical Muslims with the invasion from a democratic Country that has a Secular Government.

Your fear and BIGOTRY knows no limits does it John.

[John]

I suppose our military tacticians, our defence chiefs, our intel agencies, Foreign Affairs etc, have got it all wrong and of course you Charlienogun, are right?

And of course you will guarantee that Indonesia will always be a democracy and remain secular?

Maybe you could explain why our Jakarta embassy is the largest we have in SEA? I wonder if thats because it is perceived as a threat, not necessarily right now, but maybe in the near future when Islamic fanaticism becomes firmly entrenched and other islamic states make use of their proximity and their numbers and provides them with the means to sow mass destruction and mayhem?

Note that you think we have them (the terrorists) under control. Let us see how your story changes after the first terrorist strike this century occurs on Australian soil.

[charlienogun]

John,

Unlike you I lack your "DEEP KNOWLEDGE" of our Military (tacticians) (they are called stratigists John) and our Intel Agencies and our Foreign Affairs Dept etc.

HOWEVER common sense tells me that Indonesia lacks both the INTENT and CAPABILITY to be a threat to Australia AT THIS TIME.

Why would Indonesia take on the USA which it would do if it attacked Australia?

John the only Countries that have the Capability to attack Australia in the near future are China and the USA. Most other Countries have a very limited troop movement Capability to get here but India and Pakistan could threaten us one day if they got long range rockets for their Nuclear weapons or put their current bombs in or on top of SEA PLATFORMS.

Why would they do that if their threat is only land based; which it is?

AND our defence has always been our treaty with the USA which is more powerful now, than it has ever been.

John Australia has had terrorists for many years and I am sure we will have MASS MURDERERS living with us for the rest of this Century. That is all they are John, VERY SICK MASS MURDERERS. (Northern Ireland lived with then for the last 35 years and you said nothing about our Roman Catholic Australians. WHY was that John?)

Most Australians will die from old age a desease or accidents.

If you let them, "TERRORISTS" and the "ATTACKING INDONESIANS" will run your PARANOID LIFE, John.

[John]

Charlienogun,

The day of armed confrontation between uniformed armies using tanks planes and ships is over, as is the practice of adhering faithfully to the articles of war, no matter the cost.

The Gulf war and the Iraq war proved just that - one side dominated the battlefield, the other abandoned their positions and their equipment and ran away in their underpants. The battle of opposing massed armies was over in days.

Now we have a battle of culture, religion and ideology where tanks aircraft and ships are still used by one side while the other uses very simple tactics and shows no mercy to friend or foe

The two differing approaches will ensure a long drawn out and costly conflict. The US has the capacity to end it in days and to ensure that it never happens again but is, in the present climate, constrained.

Yes, the terrorists are very sick mass murderers, and in that vein the Russians have admitted misplacing over 100 nuclear devices. Where and how do you think the terrorists might use one if they manage to acquire one. Conventional means of delivery won’t be used.

It will happen – how do you think the US or the targeted nation might react? We have seen what 911 triggered, so it shouldn’t be that difficult to comprehend the response to a nuclear attack on a major city.

Iran and its quest for Nuclear power may ultimately prove the catalyst for its own annihilation, a conflict that will spill over into Iraq providing a solution for that problem once and for all.

There will always be small skirmishes where conventional armies and their equipment will play a part, but when push eventually comes to shove between two opposing cultural ideologies and the fight is to the finish, survival of the fittest, there will be no rules.

Iran and North Korea have us entering a new and extremely dangerous era where any physical provocation by either of them will start the broom sweeping, and it won't stop until all the dirt and filth has been swept away.

Diplomacy can be a powerful and effective tool, but only when both sides are willing to use it.

Just food for thought.

PS. There are strategies and there are tactics – I shouldn’t have to point out the difference to you.

[Daphne]

> Re: INDONESIAN invasion of Australia in 2010 at

> aussieseek.proboards25.com/index.cgi


> ------------------------------­------------------------------­--------


> The day of armed confrontation between uniformed armies using tanks
> planes and ships is over, as is the practice of adhering faithfully to
> the articles of war, no matter the cost.



You moron.


> The Gulf war and the Iraq war proved just that - one side dominated the
> battlefield, the other abandoned their positions and their equipment
> and ran away in their underpants. The battle of opposing massed armies
> was over in days.


It proved that conventional war involving a super-power is not a good
option. It has never, in the history of human warfare, been a good
option to be involved in a war where the opposition was overwhelming.

The situation of war between roughly equal opponents is rather different.
But you are a moron, and missed that.



> Now we have a battle of culture, religion and ideology where tanks
> aircraft and ships are still used by one side while the other uses very
> simple tactics and shows no mercy to friend or foe

> The two differing approaches will ensure a long drawn out and costly
> conflict. The US has the capacity to end it in days and to ensure that
> it never happens again but is, in the present climate, constrained.



What, precisely, is that capacity? And what is the consraint? Any
different to the Russian experiences?


> Yes, the terrorists are very sick mass murderers, and in that vein the
> Russians have admitted misplacing over 100 nuclear devices. Where and
> how do you think the terrorists might use one if they manage to acquire
> one. Conventional means of delivery won't be used.

> It will happen - how do you think the US or the targeted nation might
> react? We have seen what 911 triggered, so it shouldn't be that
> difficult to comprehend the response to a nuclear attack on a major
> city.



You don't have to believe what you see on TV.


> Iran and its quest for Nuclear power may ultimately prove the catalyst
> for its own annihilation, a conflict that will spill over into Iraq
> providing a solution for that problem once and for all.

> There will always be small skirmishes where conventional armies and
> their equipment will play a part, but when push eventually comes to
> shove between two opposing cultural ideologies and the fight is to the
> finish, survival of the fittest, there will be no rules.


> Iran and North Korea have us entering a new and extremely dangerous era
> where any physical provocation by either of them will start the broom
> sweeping, and it won't stop until all the dirt and filth has been swept
> away.



Dear, oh, dear! Heard of Chicken Little?


> Diplomacy can be a powerful and effective tool, but only when both sides
> are willing to use it.

> Just food for thought.



If it was, you would starve to death.


> PS. There are strategies and there are tactics - I shouldn't have
> to point out the difference to you.


That is, you don't know and can't say.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> You say:

> We do not know where the next MURDER will happen or where the next
> traffic accident will kill someone. If we did we may have a chance of
> stopping it


> Correct, however we take every step possible to reduce the possibility
> of an accident occuring and we reduce or remove the altercation and
> violent situations that might lead to murder.


> For example we don't let two cars travelling in opposite directions,
> use the same lane because we know what would happen.


> Why should we allow two opposing ideologies to share our streets when
> history and recent events have shown us exactly what will happen?


> Just recently Governments without a clue discriminated against all
> responsible P-platers because of the action of a few irresponsible
> drivers in that category.


> Recently Soccer Australia gave notice to two teams warning that if they
> couldn't control their violent spectators they would in future play in
> isolation without spectators or even face an outright ban.


> You mention the number of possible terrorists in Australia is 60. Well
> it only takes one to commit an atrocity.



I mention the number of actual terrorists in Australia is 0.


> I find it interesting that you now concede that we actually do have
> terrorists in our midst when only a few months back you were repeating
> over and over again - where are the terrorists? Who are they? Show me
> the proof?


You are a moron. John

[Daphne]

..You moron John ...It proved that conventional war involving a super-power is not a good option. It has never, in the history of human warfare, been a good option to be involved in a war where the opposition was overwhelming.

[John]

Daphne,

That's an informed and overpowering argument you use. Did you think of all that by your little lonesome.

I thought it might be a bit much to expect a decent discussion to take place. Unfortunately developments in the near future will prove me to be close to the mark and exactly who the moron might be.

Just FYI, Strategy is a plan designed to achieve a set goal - it is the accepted plan at kickoff.

Tactics are employed by the players as the game progresses and evolves in the face of minor gains or loses when strength and weaknesses are discovered while trying to achieve the end goal.

I'll make it even simpler for you. A cricket team will endorse a strategy and a game-plan over a cup of coffee and before the commencement of play - one that gives them the best chance of achieving their set goal - victory.

However when, after the first over, the lead bowler breaks a leg and your high-scoring batsman falls ill, the tactics employed will change accordingly.

The situation of war between roughly equal opponents is rather different. But you are a moron, and missed that\

And who would that be who is roughly equal to the US in weapons technology, resources, countermeasures and stamina? Read up on your Janes, Daphne (no it’s not a one of Cleo’s competitors so you won’t find it in the magazine rack).

Need I remind you that the Atom bomb ended the war against Japan, an enemy that was vastly superior at the outset, but was on its suicidal knees at the end. Despite the Japanese lacking any real strategic threat to the US towards the end, the US used the bomb to remove the problem once and for all, with a minimum of fuss and no friendly casualties.

McCarthur recommended using the bomb during the Korean war and it was even a consideration during the Vietnam, conflict.

You don't have to believe what you see on TV.

I don't watch much TV, but obviously you do. Can you explain why you think the US and other Western nations have plans in place to deal with a CNB threat? Are you suggesting the Russians are lying when they say they can't account for all their nuclear devices, some of which are suitcase bombs and fissionable material capable of taking out a central Business District in any major city?

I mention the number of actual terrorists in Australia is 0.

And of course you are 100 percent sure of that claim and suitably qualified to make it? (if you read carefully you might realise I am quoting Charlienogun, so you might want to direct your ire at him on this one)

I hope you're not suggesting that the only real terrorist in a cell is the one who actually triggers the bomb?

Poor dear, your ignorance is showing. Stick to something you actually might know something about - that way you won’t come across as being so naïve.

[Bob Wood]

Iraq is a conflict between an occupying force and partisans. See Russian
Partisan...See French resistance.


Australia pretty much wont let people into there country already. what the
hell are you afraid of?

[Steve]

> You mention the number of possible terrorists in Australia is 60. Well
> it only takes one to commit an atrocity.


What makes me laugh is Blair, Howard and Bush talking about "extremists" and
"terrorists"....when these three men together have killed more than all the
Osama Bin Laden fellow-travellers combined.

It highlight the hypocrisy that says an illegal invasion of a country that
had nothiong to do with 9/11 and subsequent death toll well over 25,000
people......is supposedly much less "bad" than a handful of subway bombs
killing 50 or so.


Again...we see utterly perverted expression of otherwise good values from
the leaders of the UK, Australia and the US

[JHN]

Based on the latest information available, I need to make a correction to my reply #7.

There are "only 83 man-portable (suitcase) nuclear devices missing now - not the 100 I reported.

Feel much better now, but the highly radio-active material laying around in the unguarded dumps at Murmansk is a bit worrying.

[charlienogun]

Albert,

Now you think we should have invaded RUSSIA to get the WMD's out of Terrorist's hands.

Is that the GO now is it John??

[Easy enough by 2010]

By 2010, you should have sufficiently disarmed yourselves, and absorbed enough questionable groups into your society, that invading you will be like a walk in the park.
Hello, Charlie, I'm back, from the Swamps of Florida. ;D
Bob

[charlienogun]

OH NO the GUN TOTING man with a GUN RUNNING Daughter Child from the GREAT land where they cannot raise a volunteer Army to bring Democracy into a third world Country.

He is now telling US how we will be over run by the many cultures and many languages of the 800 islands to our NORTH OF WHICH he has NOT ONE SMICK of knowledge.

How many terrorists did your mate GEORGE get to go into IRAQ Bob.

As the IRAQI now say; "Before GEORGE we had one terrorist. His name was SADDAM.

Now after BUSH we have Many Terrorists and we do not know their name.

We cannot afford all this LIBERTY to be KILLED."

Mate an ASSIE does not need weapons; we kill with our logic and wit.

[frankgardner]

Thanks Daphne!
The Generals were completely outclassed in Vietnam, and not only lost the war, but also the moral high ground.
In 1964, I remember saying to my father:

" Dad, we cannot win the Vietnam War."
We had just seen a TV Show in which an Australian Army training sergeant was joking with his new recruits about the searching of Vietnamese women for explosives.

My Dad, somewhat bemused asked:

" Why is that son?"

" Because if foreign troops were in our country, and searching our women like that , we'd fight them like hell wouldn't we?"

" Yes we would, and you are probably right. "

[tsiya]

"ASSIE "? Freudian slip, Charles? You are right, I almost choked on this one!

[charlienogun]

I usually leave the U out of AUSSIE when I am commenting on John's erudite POSTS.

It was a slip.

[JHN]

Charlienogun,

Never said that, never implied that.

You should see about those voices you hear in your head - you know, the ones no-one else seems to hear. ;D

[JHN]

Frank reckons:

The Generals were completely outclassed in Vietnam, and not only lost the war, but also the moral high ground.

Not another Owen Gun story please.

"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic." (Nixon).

The facts are the American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years after the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could they lose a war they had already stopped fighting? They fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. (1996 Information Please Almanac)

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. (1996 Information Please Almanac)

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) in the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. (1996 Information Please Almanac).

[charlienogun]

John,

Your quotes are technically CORRECT.

It would seem that you and the USA have not understood the main LESSON from this situation.

The USA did not bring PEACE and Democracy to the South Vietnamese.

They brought death and Destruction onto both the North and South Vietnamese people who won their WAR that combined their Country back into one Independent self ruling Nation.

It took the death of 50,000 USA KILLED and 500 KILLED Australians to learn that lesson.

It would seem that 30 years latter we are about to relearn that lesson in IRAQ where we have again gone to WAR for the WRONG REASON.

[JHN]

What was the Vietnam war about Charlienogun? Not just your little picture - tell us about the big picture in the context of world events of the time and the Cold War.

In the end does it really matter if two basket case halves of a nation are reunited to form one big basket-case of a nation?

What matters is that communist China and the Soviet Union were defeated. Communism was checked and eventually bankrupted itself by propping-up North Vietnam.

Vietnam was just the playground for two opposing ideologies and we know which side won that one - don't we? That what irks the lefties so much.

Yes, it does seem the USA has not learnt the main lesson - that lesson is the left-wing media and the left are on the side of the enemy. The USA needs to say F*CK you all and get on with winning it.

[tsiya]

The kneejerk moonbats do nothing but lengthen conflict, by giving hope to the enemy. Had the modern, so called free world, united on this, it would all be over.

[charlienogun]

JOHN,

Your need to put everything in your STRANGE Left and Right baskets TOTALLY blinds you and your mates.

You see Vietnam as THE PLAYGROUND of TWO OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES.

What is IRAQ then??




tsiya,

What are you talking about.

What would be OVER if the whole free world attacked IRAQ???

If that was TRUE why not NUC the place?

It worked in WWII.

When will the FASCIST learn that ideas are not defeated with FORCE.

I thought your GEORGE said you WON in May 04.

[tsiya]

charlienogun said:

JOHN,

Your need to put everything in your STRANGE Left and Right baskets TOTALLY blinds you and your mates.

You see Vietnam as THE PLAYGROUND of TWO OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES.

What is IRAQ then??




tsiya,

What are you talking about.

What would be OVER if the whole free world attacked IRAQ???

If that was TRUE why not NUC the place?

It worked in WWII.

When will the FASCIST learn that ideas are not defeated with FORCE.

I thought your GEORGE said you WON in May 04.

Islam is nothing more than another dangerous ideology. It needs locked up in a box, or utterly destroyed, just as much as German national socialism, or Russian Marxism did. You may only see Islam as another religion, it is in fact a dictatorial theocracy. Islam is not designed to coexist with any competition, only to rule, or destroy.

[charlienogun]

tsiya,

Radical Fundamental interpretations of most religions are what you have described in your last POST. Look at the JEWS who have had to be removed from GAZA is you want an example of a RADICAL view of their faith.

You are an IGNORANT and INTOLERANT and very misinformed fool to believe that muslims are more than a peaceful members of a religious faith. They have proved that in Australia for over 115 years.

[tsiya]

charlienogun said:

tsiya,

Radical Fundamental interpretations of most religions are what you have described in your last POST. Look at the JEWS who have had to be removed from GAZA is you want an example of a RADICAL view of their faith.

You are an IGNORANT and INTOLERANT and very misinformed fool to believe that muslims are more than a peaceful members of a religious faith. They have proved that in Australia for over 115 years.

Not enough of them to vote in sharia law, yet , Charlie. The day will come.

[charlienogun]

tsiya,

Your irrational FEAR has got you by the B---s my friend.

The great massive majority of our Muslim immigrants have fled from Sharia Law States.

It is only the few easily led RADICALS with your mentality of being easily led that wants Shariua law in Australia.

Only less than 1000 in a Muslim population of about 280,000.

I have no fear as I believe in our STRONG DEMOCRATIC STATE that allows all views to be heard and I believe Sharia Law will be rejected for its stupidity.

We had as many communists in Australia and it was of no consequence.

Just FREE SPEECH and democratic principles prevailed which is hard to explain to a FASCIST.