Dear Tapp,

Thanks for your bit of information
about the Defence Force and bushfires.
I'm the first to admit that I don't have
all the answers - so I'm pleased when someone
sets me straight. Most of the time I find
myself - digging up info from other sources -
that I think are relevant to the thread I'm on.
Anyway, along those lines ... I've got a question...
for anyone that can answer it.
This may be slightly off-subject but I'll ask it
anyway?

Do we need US bases on Australian soil?

The reason I ask this is - I came across a book
while cleaning my shelves at home,
written by Peter Garrett - back in 1987, called
"Political Blues." In it Garrett says, and I
quote, " The US bases in Australia - Pine Gap,
Nurrungar, and North West Cape - are three of
the biggest pimples on the face of adolescent
Australia. Despite their description as "joint
facilities" (which always goes with any mention of
them), the fact is that no Australians including
our own Prime Minister, can tell you anything
substantial about what goes on there.

They are secret bases. American built and American
controlled, they exist to serve the policies of that
country while we, the hosts, remain in the dark.
And while they carry on behind closed doors and
wire fences, the mad rush of the arms race of which they
are an integral part continues unabated..."

How relevant I wonder are Garrett's comments of yesterday,
to us today?

Should we be worried? Are US interests the same as Australia's?
I'm just curious.

Paul,

Let’s be clear I don’t dislike Thatcher I just don’t see the justification on logic grounds to deify someone who is a historical foot note. She added nothing of a lasting nature.
Have you read the history of the Falklands?
I also agreed that Argentina were wrong in invading. I offered a well documented political technique of distraction used by both countries.
The Argentinean Military would have known that UK either would have been able to mount a military defence either alone or with allies. My reading suggests it was Thatcher’s govt pride that made the diplomacy BEFORE the invasion fail.

Winnie was prepared to sacrifice a whole city for the greater good and was considered a hero surely one has to wonder why the UK was prepared to spend and continue to spend for no greater good ? (Save jingoistic pride and/or distraction). The Appeasement argument is nonsense as was UK being under attack. Paul as I said I’m not interested in re-fighting the Falklands war.
Can we agree to disagree and move on to the point of the topic?

Governments decide on postures based on foreign policy and risks. Howard changed our military Posture. It is at this level the topic was pitched. Military do not look at the diplomatic consideration they look at potential military threats from a military perspective.

What we see as threatening may not be how others see it. True we can’t take on China or India et al but Indonesia’s trust in us is rather slim.

My over arching point was that we are vulnerable on our north/west coast line. White papers aren’t concerned with disease control, and small incursions. But think of the consequences of Foot and mouth etc being maliciously introduced to ferrel animals and the consequences to Australia? Currently we have a CSIRO team of > 12 people who focus on Cape York and islands.

Tapp.
You’ve over interpreted what I said read the rest.
I think military should lead major catastrophes.
Tanks are vulnerable as planes are they need logistical support and are useless in some terrain