"Brash" wrote in message
...
"Defender in Tas" wrote in message
om...
Let
me guess, ex-army?

No, but hardly relevant.

It is actually. Seeing as you take a pro-army/tanks stance at the
expense of
strategic common-sense.

My pro-army, pro-tanks stance is not at the expense of strategic
commonsense (no hyphen), nor is at the expense of the RAAF or RAN. I
would like it to be at the expense of the enormous, and growing,
social welfare budget, but that's another issue. I believe the defence
budget should be dramatically increased. And I also believe a balance
in capabilities must be maintained, with due regard to the likely
threats and contingencies that our forces must face. It's incredibly
misleading for you to suggest that my support for the probable
retirement of the F-111 around 2006 is linked to my support for
acquiring new tanks. I apologised for giving the false impression that
I favoured using the $300 million (a conservative estimate as some are
now reporting it to be $500m) to be saved from retiring the Pigs on
raising two new infantry battalions. Personally, I believe the number
of infantry battalions at present is adequate. I was quite clear in
stating my views on what we should be doing regarding our air combat
capabilities.



I don't claim to know a whole lot.

Then you should try asking questions instead of making statements.

Oh, so you're the local expert?

Some might say that.



Only you believe that gate guard, only you.

'Defender in Tas' may not know much on the subject,but at least he isn't a
gate guard (in a service only slightly less military than Telstra) with
delusions of grandeur.

To you 'Defender in Tas', 'Brash' is an Airfield Defence Guard in the RAAF,
the lowest of the low, they can't hack the hard yards in the Army and aren't
smart enough to find a better job in the RAAF - but he is a laugh with his
self important nonsense.