Hasbeen: We would not need to land 800 men if we were interested in defence...we only have to destroy any attempt to land 800 men on our soil.
An invasion force is *much* more expensive than the capability to blast an area from a distance. We have the advantage of distance, a hard border, a northern "killing field" zone which is very hard for invaders to keep, and more importantly no desire to annex our neighbours.
We are currently spending more on looking after US interests than our own, say, fishing resources.
The US uses our soil for Echelon and other spying missions yet we gain little from that arrangement. (Pine Gap is almost US soil!) If the US alliance drags us into a war with China then it will be *very* expensive...Can they prevent missiles hitting us? If push came to shove, would the modern US protect Australia, even if they could? Only if it was in their interests.

Another point which is tangential at least is that our enthusiasm for the Alliance is in proportion with the lack of casualties. (Are there poll figures for Vietnam era on this question, I wonder?)
This enthusiasm may be shot down (possibly a pun) with casualties in Oruzgan as we take over the command there - which seems to mean pushing our blokes a bit further up the line, or so the recent commentary suggested

Yeah, let every nation in the world get armed to the teeth. It's a great idea. Then we could have wars everywhere all the time and the people that make money from it would rejoice and the imperialists would rejoice...

Nowhere among the comments is anyone talking about achieving peace. It's as if war is natural, normal, kind of like having a cup of tea! Such is our indoctrination.

And of course the world's greatest warmongrel, America, just loves it, promotes it, relishes the sounds of its missiles blowing up women and children and the smell of burning flesh.

Humans intelligent? Perhaps one day they might be if there's any of Earth left!

http://dangerouscreation.com

David G wrote:

>>Nowhere among the comments is anyone talking about achieving peace>>

I'm a firm believer in Flavius Vegetius Renatus's dictum:

Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you wish for peace, prepare for war)

So, yes, when I say Australia should be so well armed that no one would think it worthwhile to attack us I am talking about "achieving peace."

If Britain and France had been better prepared for war in 1939 the most destructive war in history may have been averted.

The world is what it is and it can be a pretty nasty place. The wise man hopes for the best but prepares for the worst.

Stevenimeyer tells us that: "when I say Australia should be so well armed that no one would think it worthwhile to attack us I am talking about "achieving peace."

So peace is only possible if everyone is armed to the teeth, eh? What a profound, curious thought.

I mean Israel is armed to the teeth and is militarily supreme in its region but it doesn't talk peace. It talks about nuking Iran ASAP while it continues with its sixty years trample of the Palestinians.

The U.S. talks incessantly about peace and human rights while it wages endless war and sells its weapons around the world.

Peace will never be achieved by war. 10,000 of bloody history shows that!

We need to throw off our indoctrination and get a new mindset!

Yes, I'm afraid I'm a bit sceptical of paradoxes, including paradoxical quotes from obscure Romans. The one from Flavius reminds me of the protestations from old soldiers that war commemoration is really a way of saying 'never again': there will always come a time when one arm of the inherently contradictory concept triumphs over the other. And no prizes for guessing which arm triumphs. In the case of the quote from Flavius I'd guess that the thrill of war preparation tends to obscure the peaceful purpose of it all, particularly if you are in the equipment procurement game. If you want to toss around thought-provoking quotes I'd recommend 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' which Wilfred Owen pinched from Horace. Heavily ironic perhaps but still a good paraphrase of the lines trotted out by political leaders through the ages over bodies on gun carriages or returning in military transports in body-bags.