Australia's own 'Cuban missile crisis'

[Bogan]

To John Smith.

I don't know what you are doing on a debate site if you do not want to debate? Unless you write reasoned arguments supporting your position then you are not even trying to debate. You are simply a heckler. When you heckle too much you become a Troll. Unless you can lift your game I will simply ignore you. This is your last warning.

[J o h n S m i t h]

I don't know what you are doing on a debate site if you do not want to debate?

You seem confused. This is a political discussion board, not a debate club. I can discuss in any manner I like. If you don't like it then that's your problem, not mine.

Unless you write reasoned arguments supporting your position then you are not even trying to debate.

thats right, I'm not interested in debate where you repeat the same crap over and over. I'm interested in conversation. I see no reason to say with 500 words, what I can say with 10. Just because you are deluded enough to think that rambling n endlessly is equal to quality debate, that doesn't mean everyone else does.

[brian ross]

Hi Briney! Long time no see! I missed you, I really did. I have been trying to understand woke warriors like you for yonks, and I think I have got you figured out now. I used to think that intelligent people could be swayed by the power of reason and I could never understand why you refused to concede even the most clearly self evident point. But it's like the old saying, "you can never convince anyone of anything if their job depends on not understanding." I never realised just how much you public service types are only concerned with the interests of the public service. The rest of Australia can go to hell provided that public servants are protected and can profit.

Now I understand why you defended the numerous instances of public service incompetence in Australia's defense purchases. You have to defend your incompetent mates at any price. And you need to have inferior warships built in Australia at fantastic cost because you need to keep the unions onside. After all, there is a real split between the public service unions and the private sector unions as there is. you need to keep some of them onside, so you throw them an expensive, taxpayer funded bone from time to time.

And then there is immigration and so called "refugees." I have tried to tell you, over and over again, how stupid and dangerous it is for you to support the immigration of Muslims and other groups of people well known for their high levels of welfare dependence and serious criminal behaviour. You have always tried to refute my points by standing on the moral high ground and pretending how you are anti racist. But that is not it, is it mate? No. The more useless, and crime and terrorism prone immigrant groups you can get into Australia, the better it is for the public service and their mouth pieces in the Labor party. The more crime the better. That means more police, state prosecutors, judges, law courts, social workers, parole officers, and prison warders. The more terrorists the better. That means more security police and more state control. The more useless races infesting our country and living on our dole, means more welfare workers, more social workers, and more interpreters.

Then there is the ABC. You defend the ABC atrocious bias because they are the media arm of the public service, being public servants themselves.

Almost any social cause can be exploited to benefit you and your mates in the public service. $60 billion pa being given to "aborigines", some with blond hair and blue eyes? Anyone with half a brain can see that too much money is being squandered on people who are not in any way "aborigines" but there is no way that you will ever recognise that. The more people on the dole and dependent upon Labor's redistribution of wealth away from the creators of wealth to the consumers of wealth, the better. And most of that redistribution is managed by the public service anyway.

'Multiculturalism" is just another way to divide the working class vote because democracy is a real impediment to the public service. What they want is a government of the public service, by the public service, and for the public service. Those horrible working class Anglo Saxon working class people could not see the benefits of a Socialist Australia so they have to have their votes diluted by importing ever more welfare dependent races into Australia who can be depended upon to vote Labor. The Democrats in the USA are onto the same tactic. Who cares if it destroys their own society? They can always retire away from the crime infested cities they created with their indexed linked pensions.

Got you figured out now, Briney. I can't wait for you to post up another one of your "causes" which (as per usual) are wrapped in some sort of moral Trojan Horse packaging, when what it is really about is just self interest for the public service.

Poor, poor. "Bogan". How wrong you can be. I've never been a member of the Public Service, so I don't know what your rabbiting on. I have worked in the Tertiary Sector and the private sector for decades. The worse management I have ever witnessed has been that of the private sector. I defend the public sector again ignorance and idiots who are ideologically driven critics. Remember the public sector is just doing what the politicians tell them to do. Funny that, hey? Guess who has been in charge for the last 10 years in the Federal sphere? Hopefully they, the Tories will be turfed out come May 21, hey?

That is the key point - ideologically drive, like you. Tsk, tsk...

[Bogan]

Briney wrote

Poor, poor. "Bogan". How wrong you can be. I've never been a member of the Public Service, so I don't know what your rabbiting on. I have worked in the Tertiary Sector and the private sector for decades. The worse management I have ever witnessed has been that of the private sector. I defend the public sector again ignorance and idiots who are ideologically driven critics. Remember the public sector is just doing what the politicians tell them to do. Funny that, hey? Guess who has been in charge for the last 10 years in the Federal sphere? Hopefully they, the Tories will be turfed out come May 21, hey?

That is the key point - ideologically drive, like you. Tsk, tsk...

That's odd, Briney? You once told me that you had a Muslim soldier in your platoon and what a sterling chap he was. And later you claimed that you had never been in the military? Then you said you had a job inspecting M113's, which certainly does not sound like a private sector job to me. Now you claim that you are not in the public service? When I posted up some of your quotes from the old Public debate site which clearly displayed your double standards, contradictions, half truths, and worse, you disowned them and and claimed that you never wrote them. Even Nicole called you an outright liar. So did a few others who knew you on the old site. So, if you do not admit to being a public servant because you know you will be letting your real intentions slip, then I will take that with a grain of salt.

The public service think that they are the government and you are their chief cheer leader. The whole ideological battle now going on in the western world is between those who are Leftists, and that means public servants, public service unions, academics, and the ABC, and the Right made primarily of productive people who pay the taxes to keep the public servants in their cushy jobs.

[brian ross]

Briney wrote

Poor, poor. "Bogan". How wrong you can be. I've never been a member of the Public Service, so I don't know what your rabbiting on. I have worked in the Tertiary Sector and the private sector for decades. The worse management I have ever witnessed has been that of the private sector. I defend the public sector again ignorance and idiots who are ideologically driven critics. Remember the public sector is just doing what the politicians tell them to do. Funny that, hey? Guess who has been in charge for the last 10 years in the Federal sphere? Hopefully they, the Tories will be turfed out come May 21, hey?

That is the key point - ideologically drive, like you. Tsk, tsk...

That's odd, Briney? You once told me that you had a Muslim soldier in your platoon and what a sterling chap he was. And later you claimed that you had never been in the military? Then you said you had a job inspecting M113's, which certainly does not sound like a private sector job to me. Now you claim that you are not in the public service? When I posted up some of your quotes from the old Public debate site which clearly displayed your double standards, contradictions, half truths, and worse, you disowned them and and claimed that you never wrote them. Even Nicole called you an outright liar. So did a few others who knew you on the old site. So, if you do not admit to being a public servant because you know you will be letting your real intentions slip, then I will take that with a grain of salt.

The public service think that they are the government and you are their chief cheer leader. The whole ideological battle now going on in the western world is between those who are Leftists, and that means public servants, public service unions, academics, and the ABC, and the Right made primarily of productive people who pay the taxes to keep the public servants in their cushy jobs.

Oh dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, "Bogan". You have no verifiable evidence do you? Funny that. I have said many things over the decades, many things. Just as you have. Some of those things are embarrassing now a days. Time change and so do opinions. I had a Muslim in my platoon when I was enlisted. He was a top notch soldier and a great mate. Muslims like all peoples vary in how they react and what they do. Most are good people, who try hard to be good Aussies. You're just displaying your Islamophobia. I would trust my life to most Muslims rather than you, "Bogan". Perhaps it's 'cause I treat them as human beings? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

[Bogan]

Briney wrote

Oh dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, "Bogan". You have no verifiable evidence do you? Funny that. I have said many things over the decades, many things. Just as you have. Some of those things are embarrassing now a days. Time change and so do opinions. I had a Muslim in my platoon when I was enlisted. He was a top notch soldier and a great mate. Muslims like all peoples vary in how they react and what they do. Most are good people, who try hard to be good Aussies. You're just displaying your Islamophobia. I would trust my life to most Muslims rather than you, "Bogan". Perhaps it's 'cause I treat them as human beings? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

As a very experienced debater, I think that the key to getting the best of an opponent (other than just speaking the truth and having the facts) is to figure out "where is this guy coming from?" I used to think that intelligent people all wanted to understand the truth, but now I know that many "intelligent" people can still be ideologues who can believe that black is somehow white, provided that it is in their interests or their cherished ideology to do so. In addition, I realise that some people are "Absolutist thinkers" who can only think in absolutes, and these are driven people who are convinced that their particular ideology is absolutely correct, and they see nothing wrong with telling any lie or refusing to acknowledge any self evident truth if it can aid their "noble" cause that will Save the World.

I am sure that you are a public servant, Brian, but you are doing your best to hide it because you know that it means I can figure out your real intentions. Like most people who claim the moral high ground, and who claim to be the champions of the "oppressed", your real intention is the self interest of yourself and your group. You denial means nothing to me. You once told me that you were in the military and served under a "Major Hassan" but on another occasion when I brought up your military service, you denied ever being in the military. Now, once again, you are claiming you were in the military, this time as an enlisted man. That looks to me like a person who is desperate to hide his real intentions, although he slips up from time to time by giving us insights into his past personal life, which he later feels the need to deny to keep his opponents guessing.

You are a slippery character, Brian. I originally began debating against you what? Twenty years ago? You had me completely flummoxed. You would say one thing which you later on denied. I got fed up of going back over our previous debates to find your quote so that I could show you that it is what you had said. But you did it so often I realised that it was in fact, a tactic. That floored me. As a basically honest person I had assumed that anyone who went on a debate site was probably an intelligent person who really did have a point of view that they would defend honestly in fair debate. It never occurred to me that there were some people who just wanted to push their own self seeking narrative, and stifle debate, using any method available. Could I congratulate you? You are a master at it.

That is why I was forced to create my "Brian Ross Clangors File" so that I could easily find your quotes where you made previous contradictory statements which you later denied ever saying. It was a real boon to me as you could no longer change your position every time you felt the wind blowing the wrong way. The best aspect of my BR clangors file is that you keep slipping up and displaying your contempt of white people, which is of course, racism. If you accuse me of racism now, (not that I deny it) I can just pull up your own disgusting racist comments about white people and throw them back in your face. Every time you say it is wrong to stereotype, I can display your own statements where you negatively stereotyped white people.

Your intentions are clear to me. You don't believe in what you are preaching. You certainly don't think that racism is bad because you are a racist yourself, and you know it. Therefore, what motivates you is self interest, which you need to hide. What that self interest is, is not hard to figure out once a list of your fav. "causes" are examined.

You are opposed to the western world, and I think it is because most people in the western world were just too smart to accept the empty promises of left wing totalitarianism. Call it what you want, Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Democratic Socialism, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, they are all pretty much the same thing. They all boil down to a government "of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy, and for the bureaucracy." You are a bureaucrat and you look after the interests of your beloved public service.

When the debate is about ABC bias, you will defend to the death your public service mates in the ABC and their appalling bias. They are the PR branch of the public service and you want that to continue. Hang all that crap about it's own founding charter declaring that it must be unbiased.

When the debate is about Muslims, you will never acknowledge any of the numerous self evident truths about how dangerous these people are, and how they are a danger to your own people. Why? Because the more useless, dangerous, and welfare addicted people in Australia there are,the better. It divides the vote of the Great Unwashed so the public service and their ALP and Greens leaders can get into power.

When the debate is about the self evident incompetence of Australia's defense purchasing agency, you will ignore the most flagrant examples of sheer incompetence which cost the Australian people tens of billions, to go into bat for your public service mates who screwed everything up again. Like the left wing unions who sabotaged Australia's war effort during WW2, you care little for defense, what is really important is making certain that the incompetent's in Australia's defense procurement offices keep the jobs, and that left wing unions get defense related contracts.

When the debate is about "refugees" you will ignore the fact that most of them are not refugees at all. The reason? Once again, the more welfare dependent and crime prone low IQ people we import into Australia who are dependent upon the government for everything, the better it is for the public service. More crime and terrorism means more police, more security police, more security guards, more judges, more courthouses, more state prosecutors and taxpayer funded defense lawyers, (which is why so many lawyers support "refugees"), more social workers, even more social workers, and even more social workers, more "interpreters", more parole officers, and more prison officers.

The key to your real intentions can be discerned by your causes. And they always come down to the same thing. Defend the Minorities From the Evil White People. Defend the "Oppressed" from the Stealers of Aboriginal Babies. The Colonialists. The racists. Leftists have worked out that since white people are on the whole too smart to accept whatever brand of left wing totalitarianism that the Left hankers for, then the best thing to do is to turn away from those ungrateful white working class and disadvantaged class people, and go for the non whites. Tell the non white immigrants that you are their champions against the "oppression" of the racist baby stealing white people. You know that the white birth rate is declining and that dysfunctional low IQ minorities breed like rabbits, so it is only a matter of time before you will get through elections your socialist utopia.

Well, it worked well enough in the USA with a bit of vote rigging. But the problem for the public service is that your leaders are all nincompoops who have no idea of how to run a country. Here in Australia, we go through the same cycle every ten years or so. Labor gets in and stuffs the economy, and then get hurled out and the Libs get in and put things back in order. Then the electorate falls for Labor's empty promises of free money again, and they get elected again, just to stuff everything up again. Your latest shining example of public service socialism is the USA who's President is an embarrassment not just to the USA itself, but to the entire democratic world. No wonder Putin thinks democracy is stupid and he can do whatever he wants. Intelligent people just can not understand how anybody could vote for a senile old man man and make him the most powerful man on earth. That's what happens when you get an ever more low IQ electorate which is increasing through immigration or birth rate differentials. The USA is in crisis, and all because the Americans have people like yourself who put their own self interest, and the interests of the public service, before that of their nation. All they want is power. And if they have to ruin their own country by importing millions of dummies with low IQ who would be stupid enough to vote for idiotic policies like "Defund the Police" (that went well, didn't it?), they will do it.

[brian ross]

Oh, dearie, dearie me. "Bogan" you really have pigeonholed me, haven't you? Pity it is all wrong. I served 10 years in the Army, five or so years under "Major Hassan". I have worked in the Tertiary education sector and private sector since then. I have never been a public servant. I defend the ABC against unfair ideologically driven criticism because, well it needs defending. I defend the defence procurement agency because it needs defending. Yes, both occasionally make mistakes but invariably they driven by political desires rather than because of technical problems.

Political desires which are never considered as part of your diatribes. I've never read of you attacking the Tories for their decision to foist the M60 GPMG on the Army and make them use the machine gun for over 25 years, only to replace it with the same gun which actually won the competition in 1959. Little things slip past you because they don't intrude on your political beliefs, even if they end up killing soldiers. Nor do we ever read of you attacking the Tories because of their decision to foist upon the RAAF the F-111. An aircraft that was poorly designed and didn't really show it's real potential until it was remanufactured with new Avionics and new main spars and became able to use laser guided bombs... Funny that. Oh, the ALP has stuffed up occasionally and done spectacularly badly as well. We have the Sea Sprite choppers, the Tiger/Tigre choppers but that was because they listened to the professionals who were mistaken in their opinions.

You are ideologically driven. You hate the Left hence your classification of all Leftist movements under the one banner. There are differences, you realise? However that subtlety escapes you. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

[Bogan]

Briney Ross wrote

Oh, dearie, dearie me. "Bogan" you really have pigeonholed me, haven't you? Pity it is all wrong. I served 10 years in the Army, five or so years under "Major Hassan". I have worked in the Tertiary education sector and private sector since then. I have never been a public servant. I defend the ABC against unfair ideologically driven criticism because, well it needs defending. I defend the defence procurement agency because it needs defending. Yes, both occasionally make mistakes but invariably they driven by political desires rather than because of technical problems.

Yes Brine. I have you pigeonholed. And despite your denials, quite accurately too. But I realise that it is imperative for you to deny it so that you can pretend that your self interest, and the self interest of your public servant buddies, is not your real motivation. Of course you defend the ABC because they are the public service's public relations department. I am still laughing at their Four Corners 2 part "Story of the Century" in which they claimed that President Trump was a Russian agent. Hahahahaha. The funniest thing was that this billion dollar publicly funded bunch of over paid self serving ideologues and shiny pants was, that they were stupid enough to actually believe their own propaganda.

And of course you defend the defense procurement agency because they are your public service mates too. No matter how much they stuff up you will defend them to the death. Good public servants like you stick together, watch each others backs, and try to get each others departments to always expand and get more finance.

Brine wrote

Political desires which are never considered as part of your diatribes. I've never read of you attacking the Tories for their decision to foist the M60 GPMG on the Army and make them use the machine gun for over 25 years, only to replace it with the same gun which actually won the competition in 1959. Little things slip past you because they don't intrude on your political beliefs, even if they end up killing soldiers. Nor do we ever read of you attacking the Tories because of their decision to foist upon the RAAF the F-111. An aircraft that was poorly designed and didn't really show it's real potential until it was remanufactured with new Avionics and new main spars and became able to use laser guided bombs... Funny that. Oh, the ALP has stuffed up occasionally and done spectacularly badly as well
You are ideologically driven. You hate the Left hence your classification of all Leftist movements under the one banner. There are differences, you realise? However that subtlety escapes you. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Now you are trying to blame the Libs for another fuck up by the procurement agency in regards to the M60. Thank you, I had forgotten about that one and I will add it to my list. Elected government members are rarely former armed forces officers and usually know nothing about military matters at all. Such people rely upon their public service "experts" to inform them as to what is the best military equipment is to buy for our money. The government of the day usually takes the advice of their public service "experts."

These were the same "experts" who did everything in their power to quash the manufacture of the Owen Gun during WW2, which is one of the best SMG's ever invented. Trials which clearly displayed the Owens superiority over other weapons were ignored. It's a good thing that the public service ideologues running the ABC now were not around then or they would have been backing up their PS mates and pissing on the Owen for all they were worth. Even the yanks were interested in putting a .45 version into manufacturing for their own troops, but our public service "experts" told the yanks it was no good.

The M60 is another case where the public service must have recommended the gun to the relevant minister and he took their usually wrong advice.

Brian wrote

Nor do we ever read of you attacking the Tories because of their decision to foist upon the RAAF the F-111. An aircraft that was poorly designed and didn't really show it's real potential until it was remanufactured with new Avionics and new main spars and became able to use laser guided bombs... Funny that.

Oh come on Briney! You and me crossed swords on that topic a couple of years ago. I criticised the purchase of the F-111 as another example of the stupidities of the department responsible for defense acquisitions, while you defended them. You said we needed a bomber that would hit Djakarta and the F-111 was the only candidate that could do it. Now you are claiming it is all the Libs fault for purchasing this hideously over priced and under performing aircraft that we waited 11 (or was it 13?) years for delivery.

Another one of your contradictions and double standards? It is just as well you lefties have double standards, or you would have no standards at all.

Brian wrote

We have the Sea Sprite choppers, the Tiger/Tigre choppers but that was because they listened to the professionals who were mistaken in their opinions.

I do not entirely blame either the Labor governments or the Liberal governments for the long list of bungled defense purchases. For the most part they simply take the advice of their incompetent and over paid procurement "experts" who are so incompetent I am certain in my own mind that they must be being bribed. They could not be that stupid. If there is one thing that we should have learned by now, it is do not buy fighters, bombers, or submarines that are still on the drawing board, who's performance may not be as advertised, and who's costs are unknown. And it is as immutable as the Law of Gravity that the price of a drawing board weapon will balloon.

But those idiots who are your mates are still doing it. the F-35 ballooned so much in cost that the Australian government tried to cut it's initial order for 75 down to 60. The French submarine was the most idiotic proposal, probably in the entire history of world defence procurement. All because the public service and their supporters cringe in fear at the word "nuclear". Australia almost purchased a dozen diesel electric subs that were designed to be nuclear, for $60 billion dollars. Surprise, surprise, without even a single piece of steel being cut, that has ballooned to $90 billion. Even the tea lady at Defense Procurement knew that there was nothing to stop the price getting higher and higher. But even at $90 billion, it was an incredibly expensive purchase, as it committed us to pay at least A$7.5 billion dollars for each sub. And according to reports in The Australian newspaper, the French subs can not fire cruise missiles and the torpedoes are not even NATO compatible. If true, that meant we had to buy all of our torpedoes from France at God knows what cost? And we would be denied submarine launched cruise missiles which greatly extended the striking range of submarines, to include land targets as well as maritime targets.

Industrial level incompetence. And you defend it? Don't get me started on the Tigre attack helicopter, that is the second most incompetent defense purchase in the entire world history of defense procurement.

When I suggested to you that Australia should buy off the shelf nuclear submarines from either Britain or the USA, you countered by saying that neither the Brits or the yanks had ever sold nuke subs to anybody and they probably would not sell them to Australia. I countered with "Why don't we ask them?" Fortunately, Australia has a LIBERAl Defense minister with brains. Peter Dutton asked both of them and they both agreed. Perhaps Defense Acquisitions should hire me as their head? I looked up the price of a Virginia and of a Dreadnought and they are both around US$3.5 billion each. That equates to around AU$5 billion each. So, defense purchases managed to convince their mates in the Labor government to purchase a AU$7.5 billion (at least) lemon of a not yet designed diesel electric submarine, that could not fire cruise missiles and which had non NATO torpedoes? This meant that Australia could never have access to the latest generations of NATO torpedoes like the British Tigerfish, which was so damned good that even the yanks bought them.

You can only shake your head in pitying wonder. They must be getting bribed.

Of course, we are not out of the woods yet. Even if we buy nukes you can bet that instead of just buying them from the Brits or the yanks where the infrastructure is already in extant and where the subs are already in series production, your left wing mates in the unions will demand that most of the subs must be built here because their jobs are more important than our increasingly urgent national defense. And you being a lefty public servant who knows how to look after your comrades, you will support them.