Spatchcock
Senior Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 480
Gender: 
|
Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29 th, 2019 at 1:41pm: Spatchcock wrote on Apr 29 th, 2019 at 1:36pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29 th, 2019 at 1:33pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 29 th, 2019 at 1:01pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 29 th, 2019 at 12:52pm: Spatchcock wrote on Apr 29 th, 2019 at 10:53am: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 28 th, 2019 at 9:45pm: Spatchcock wrote on Apr 28 th, 2019 at 6:14pm: Have you seen how much the most senior Australian military officers get paid compared to the rest of the world for leading a military that is backward and non deployable? http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpgOh, dearie, dearie, me. "Non-deployable"? Really? Funny, I have many mates who have served in East Timor, Soloman Islands, Afghanistan and Iraq, little chicken. What were they doing if not being "deployed"?  Yes it is not deployable. You know this. Everyone who has served knows this. Australia cannot deploy to a war zone. It can do peacekeeping. Stop fudging the books. Except that Afghanistan and Iraq were definitely classed as "war zones", little chicken. East Timor and the Solomon Islands were classed as "peace keeping" operations. There is rather a large difference between the two sorts of operations. The ROEs for each force is very, very different, for starters, as are the weapons and the tactics utilised. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, we deployed partly with the help of the USAF and partly off our own bats. I n East Timor and the Soloman Islands we deployed completely by ourselves, using our own resources (with some contracted out). Incorrect. NZ was also there with their clapped out equipment, including unsafe unroadworthy vehicles and comms. The Kiwis AFAIK came after the Aussies had deployed, Aussie. That has nothing to do with substandard equipment which was the issue raised. Again you are trying to shift the argument to claim you are right. Your argument is correct however you have not addressed the claim. In this context, you are again decidedly wrong with all your statements and arguments. If you say there is too much pollution, and I say, the sky is blue, that doesn't negate your argument. It just shows me using a positive to refute a completely unrelated negative. And it would also show me to be foolish and wrong. Much like the way it shows you. I have answered Aussies' point, little chicken. You just don't like the answer I have supplied. As I was talking about who was deployed where, when and how, I felt it was more important to answer the claim about who arrived where, first. Now, run along, little chicken, run along. I can hear your nursemaid calling you from the little kiddies' playground where you belong, with your childish insults and attempts at grabbing attention. The grown ups want a proper conversation... No you haven't. You have made a tangentially related argument that addresses nothing. Your tangential argument is true. This is what you are relying on. You are so wrong in every statement you make. You change the direction of the argument with a claim that is true, then use that unrelated claim to assert the supremacy of your argument. You are pathetic.
|
Forum
Pages: 
Cultural clashes dividing French, Australian offic (Read 3664 times)
