"Brash" wrote in message
u...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...
Oh ****. This is like trying to explain quantum physics to monkeys.
(Actually, I suspect that would be easier).



You aren't very good at this are you?

This is pointless. Just like all the other "discussions" I've had with
dumb**** grunts in boozers and pubs over the years. You're all ****ing
brainwashed and stupid and can't be taught anything after they've finished
programming you at Kapooka and Singelton.


Or to put it another way, you lost all those arguments too.


Poor gate guard, BTW what was it you applied for when you joined the
RAAF?,
GD after all, gate guard is as low as it goes.

What's funny about this line you've adopted, is that "gate guards" get
paid
more and are better trained than your precious little lot.


What did you get turned down for to wind up in that role gate guard?



And how much has the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our
shores
in the time since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the
same
time.

But then a gate guard like you has no idea at all have you?

I'm not a gate guard dill. It's obvious you have no idea at all.



Not answering the question, gate guard, so I'll restate it - how much has
the F-111 done to promote Austs interests beyond our shores in the time
since we ordered them? compared to three Inf Bns over the same time.

Do try to keep up.



Perhaps if you just spared us your "insights" and stuck to what you
know
(whatever the **** that is) you wouldn't make a fool of YOURself.


Yawn, perhaps if you stuck to begging other dweebs in binaries NGs to
tell
people you are cool

What the **** are you on about spastic?


I'd deny it too if I was that pathetic.


and continued to promote assaulting females then you
would simply maintain all of our opinions of you?

Refresh my memory.

The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

I'd probably be trying to deny it too if I was as pathetic a piece of ****
as that.


Especially when it makes potential aggressor decide not to be
aggressive
in
the first place.

You see the problem with that is it's religion, not fact

And your bull**** about scrapping jets in favour of a few thousand more
dumbass grunts isn't? **** off idiot.

Not really a fact based argument is it gate guard, who has the F-111
deterred?


- you can give no
examples of potential aggressors who have been deterred by the F-111,
you
just have faith in it.

Wheras in WW2 the Japanese acknowledged that they lacked the ability to
move
and supply the amount of troops they would need to invade Aust because
of
the Army forces in situ.

Fact V religious belief.

Listen up dickhead, do the math and tell me how many troops were in the
various arms of the 2nd AIF, the RAAF, the RAN and the militia at the time
and compare that to the 21st Century. See ya later dickhead.

What has that got to do with combat ratios? or the fact that, starting from
a larger base force, the Army can be expanded more quickly to meet a
credible threat?

The quick answer is, nothing. Brash has again demonstrated his ignorance.




Its little wonder you think the way you do. Its that low
level army training you've been exposed to. Sadly,, a great many army
officers display the same "understanding" until they've done a Joint
Warfare
Course and learn that defending Australia doesn't start at the
low-tide
mark.

Poor gate guard, you believe that and thats important, please tell us ho
w
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Do you still stick your cock in dogs?

Another useful argument on the part of the gate guard - please tell us how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?





but it doesn't
neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111

The only correct thing you've said all day.

and it is not the be all and end
all of deterrent.

No **** Private (Rtd) L'abortion?


What a sad little dweeb you are.

And this "dweeb" could knock your stupid block off. How embarrassing for
you!

and again the dweeb heads off into his cozy fantasy world.