Defence plan to scrap F-111s

"Brash" wrote in message
u...


Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that full
these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions. How
often
r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r the
F111s
being deployed?

Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry
battalions
(especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.


again the gate guard shows his ignorance.

The size of the Army force in Aus significantly raises the bar as to what
constitutes an effective invasion force, which consequently raises the
logistic requirements to invade Aust significantly.

Perhaps if you didn't use words that you don't understand (like 'strategy'),
you would not keep making such a fool of yourself?

Long range strike is a very useful capability for Aust, but it doesn't
neccessarily need to be delivered by F-111 and it is not the be all and end
all of deterrent.

Oh ****. This is like trying to explain quantum physics to monkeys.
(Actually, I suspect that would be easier).

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...


Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that
full
these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions. How
often
r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r the
F111s
being deployed?

Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry
battalions
(especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.


again the gate guard shows his ignorance.

Seeing as I'm not a gate guard, who is being ignorant here?


The size of the Army force in Aus significantly raises the bar as to what
constitutes an effective invasion force, which consequently raises the
logistic requirements to invade Aust significantly.

That's right, you two-dimensional spastic. Australia's interests aren't
affected unless enemy troops lodge on our shore. I'd expect a lowly infantry
Private (Rtd) to think in such constrained terms. Clearly, this topic is way
out of your ability to comprehend.


Perhaps if you didn't use words that you don't understand (like
'strategy'),
you would not keep making such a fool of yourself?

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.


Long range strike is a very useful capability for Aust,

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


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?

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"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?


"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Brash" wrote in message
u...


Actually Infantry is over sucribed, the school of cool is not that
full
these days cause there is only limited postions in the Battalions.
How
often
r the Battalions being deployed? all the bloody time, how often r
the
F111s
being deployed?

Obviously the finer points of Strategy are lost on you. Infantry
battalions
(especially those a "light" as ours) don't make much of a strategic
deterrent. And F111s aren't suited to peace-keeping.


again the gate guard shows his ignorance.

Seeing as I'm not a gate guard, who is being ignorant here?


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.



The size of the Army force in Aus significantly raises the bar as to
what
constitutes an effective invasion force, which consequently raises the
logistic requirements to invade Aust significantly.

That's right, you two-dimensional spastic. Australia's interests aren't
affected unless enemy troops lodge on our shore. I'd expect a lowly
infantry
Private (Rtd) to think in such constrained terms. Clearly, this topic is
way
out of your ability to comprehend.


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?


Perhaps if you didn't use words that you don't understand (like
'strategy'),
you would not keep making such a fool of yourself?

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



Long range strike is a very useful capability for Aust,

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 - 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.

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 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.

"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.

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.


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.

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?

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

Refresh my memory.

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.

- 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.


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 how
many credible attackers have been deterred by Aust F-111s?

Do you still stick your cock in dogs?



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!

--
De Oppresso Liber.

"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.

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

Try arguing with a gate post. It's much the same thing. Too stupid to
understand the topic.

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.

So you don't deny you're a dill. Good to see.

The F111 has deterred everybody who contemplated openly attacking Australia
and her interests.

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


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

In other words, you're making **** up.

Refresh my memory.

The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

Oh yes. How about you tell the whole story cocksucker?

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

But you are a pathetic piece of ****.

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?

Every nation-state that contemplated attacking Australia or her interests.

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?

Which credible threat might that be? I can't see how an infantry battalion
can deter submarines blockading our SLOCs.


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

Waffle waffle. You're full of **** boy. Run along.

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?

Answer the question dog-****er.

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

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

You're the one in fantasy-land Private Lard-arse (Rtd).

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

Try arguing with a gate post. It's much the same thing. Too stupid to
understand the topic.



I'm sure you have the greater knowledge of gates.


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.

So you don't deny you're a dill. Good to see.

Still not able to deal with the question are you?



The F111 has deterred everybody who contemplated openly attacking
Australia
and her interests.



Name them, who has been a credible attacker against Australia and her
interests?



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


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

In other words, you're making **** up.



No, you and I and anyone else who happened to see your sad post knows
exactly how pathetic you are.

Refresh my memory.

The female officer you claimed to have threatened.

Oh yes. How about you tell the whole story cocksucker?


You threaten to beat up females you sad piece of ****, try to justify it any
way you like but there is no way back from that one gate guard.


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

But you are a pathetic piece of ****.


Possibly, but not one so needy as to ask strangers in a newsgroup to tell
other strangers that they think I'm cool, nor do I threaten to assault
women.

Where does that leave you?

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?

Every nation-state that contemplated attacking Australia or her interests.



No names there, come on gate guard NAME them, who has contemplated it?

Its a question simple enough even for you NAMES, boy, names.


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?

Which credible threat might that be? I can't see how an infantry battalion
can deter submarines blockading our SLOCs.

Oh my, gate guard swings and misses!

Pray tell, how will an F-111 deter a submarine from blockading our SLOCs?

and who has the credible sub force in the region that could do it?




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

Waffle waffle. You're full of **** boy. Run along.


yawn.


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?

Answer the question dog-****er.


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

Poor gate guard, his argument is again crushed.


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

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

You're the one in fantasy-land Private Lard-arse (Rtd).

Go beat up some women gate guard, it'll make you feel like you are a man, or
as close as you ever get.