Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 08:53:05 am

Where did I express " Insanity" in my last post?

Well there is the part where you think that cutting military spending will mean cutting funding to the cadets program.
Then the bit where you clearly have some sort of emotional bias towards the cadets program.
Then there comes the bit where because of your patriotism towards the cadets, you have a dislike of a similar rival program, kind of like how a sporting fan will show irrational dislike of a rival team.
Then comes the flag waving. It always ends in flag waving.


I get it, you have a bit of a hard one for the military.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 08:57:12 am

Ecological things. " Save the obscure animal", perhaps institute drug testing on welfare, and other stuff like that.

You know that police issues and military issues are different things, right?

He asked for places to get money. I supplied them. Nothing to do with police.

So, I am insane for having patriotism. Quite frankly, fuck off. Our country is great. One of the best in the world. So what if I " Have a hard one for the military". The military, goddamn, our military. They have done so much to this world. The Germans would have gone unopposed in North Africa if it were not for us. We had one of the best generals in WW1. Small amounts of reservists, or "Choco Soldiers" held off massive amounts of Japanese. Young teenage boys helped troops out, all because of the mateship they had developed. Japanese troops burned villages, yet the populace still supported the troops.

You are the insane one. Cutting defence budgets will cut cadets funding. Cadets, well, my case stands. They are the best youth organisation out there. I wave my flag sir, despite how many dumbarse politicians we may have. I wave my flag, despite how many bogans get pissed on VB and crash V8's. I wave my flag. Many do. We are not insane. We like our country, what it has done for the world. We contribute a lot in foreign aid. We take on refugees, and we took 'em as early as after WW2. Sir, I wave my flag. I wave my flag to this great nation. If you don't like my flag waving, deal with it.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 08:57:12 am

Quote from: Sheb on April 08, 2013, 08:54:11 am

Okay, so you want 25% more soldiers. That's an extra 6 billions A$ a year. Where do you want that money to come from? What threat do you think justify spending an extra 6 billions a year? Indonesia? China? The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste?

Ecological things. " Save the obscure animal", perhaps institute drug testing on welfare, and other stuff like that.

They tried that last one in America, it didn't save any money. It saved less than the cost of the testing, in fact. Less than 2% of welfare recipients tested positive for anything. and 90% of the positives were for marijuana.

Yeah, let's exterminate rare animals so we can uneccesarily militarize the nation to fight people who have zero economic incentive to invade (most of Australia is uninhabitable if you haven't noticed. We'd have 100 million here long ago, if we could).  Real good move.

Poor animals. Poor, poor animals. Don't worry, you are more important than people.
Let's just open up and tax whaling by the Japanese in our waters.

I think it would be a lot better to take pride in your wonderous, one-of-a-kind nature and to spend more money to protect that rather than to put more money into any part of the military. More patriotic as well, for that matter.

I do. Quite frankly though, our people have a higher place than animals. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 08:33:21 am

Explain?

Nathan Poe, creator of Poes law.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Basically it means that there is a point where it is impossible to tell insanity from parody.

Where did I express " Insanity" in my last post?

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 08:26:07 am

No. Cadets is the only place one could learn those skills. You learn how to act in a system, where you are in that system. Scouts? You swing on ropes, tie knots. There is no leadership. No brotherhood. Scouts do not march 60+ kms in a weekend. Scouts do not do anything of the sort. The military needs stuff like cadets. You know why? I have seen actual hate of the military in a lot of places. They need outreach. They need the country to take pride in them once more.

Nathan Poe is turning in his grave...

Explain?

That's not even logical. We don't have "doors" we have a 1000 kilometre-wide moat.

Unless it's someone bringing aircraft carriers (e.g. USA or China or India, in which case we're screwed whatever we do) we have a clear advantage defending our home turf gainst almost anyone.

Try spreading troops all across that moat. Oh, wait, we can stop them with our powerful navy! Oh wait, we only have frigates. At least our bigger buddies will save us! Oh wait, Poland!

A little bit less appeal to emotion, and a heap more logical argument.
Seriously, not your strong point...

No, it isn't. I will admit that. Emotional engagement has, and will, always be my strong point.

Alright then. Cadets. A very good organistation. Teaches good life skills, and other shit that I would never would have seeked myself. First aid was a big one. I now have a very good grasp of it now, and probably could save a person now because of that education. It taught me social skills. I went from being friendless to truly having a grasp of what the fuck to do in a social situation. Leadership. I understand how to lead people, to treat them right. And I know many people had the same transformation.

Cutting defence budgets just has too many far reaching consequences. It is a good supplement to wages being in the Reserves, and cutting that, well, would certainly reduce that benefit.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 03:59:35 am

Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands. All swallowed up in WW2. All had little military strength. Plenty of people in history have been steamrolled thinking that they needed next to no standing army. What happens when, say, China decides Taiwan has been independent for too long? Hmm? We will sit by as the world dips into war? What about NK right now?

What? it's silly to talk about Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands as being unprepared because they thought they "needed next to no standing army". Those countries also had "next to no population" compared to Germany. Just the 3 million-strong Wehrmacht outnumbered any one of those nations entire populations. Even 100% mobilization wouldn't have stopped Germany. Plus, there's the fact that they were geographically small countries sharing land borders with large empires. The situation just isn't comparable to Australia.

Even the Japanese in WWII knew they weren't able to successfully invade Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

Quote from: Prime Minister Tojo

We never had enough troops to [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time.

And any future war could be relatable to those nations. If 100% mobilisation wouldn't of helped, well then why didn't they mobilise anyway? They had underestimated the Wermacht. Everyone underestimated them. The reason they didn't mobilise is because they believed Germany wouldn't attack them. In addition, if an army attacked us, and was larger than our population, then we should... Have less of an army?

Yeah, there is nothing menacing Australia. If in the future someone build an army up, well, you'll have time to build yours up too.

Except that our government won't because of people saying " Oh, they won't hurt us!"
And again, the defence funding also goes into funding for Cadets, a very good youth organisation. Cutting back on that funding would cut back on youth funding, which is never a good thing.

Please read my edit: If the army really did engineering cheaper, then we'd contract them out for money. Since we're not doing that, it's unlikely that they're more cost-effective than hiring a professional construction firm.

You really do not know what a combat engineer is about, do you? They do not construct water piping. Nor power plants. They are not full engineers. They build roads. Chop trees. Make airfields. Field works. Stuff that is cheap to make. Hiring a construction firm for roads, airfields, and other such things when you have fully capable and trained men, with more specialised equipment for doing these tasks more cheaply, is stupid.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 03:45:00 am

Quote from: Reelya on April 08, 2013, 03:42:57 am

You really think it's cheaper to deploy full military than to hire a contractor? The amount of outsourcing the army does would state otherwise.

Please state where I said we were going to deploy 50,000+ men for foreign aid?

Army dudes don't travel singular. But i never said 50,000. Even individually they're more expensive - for what you get - than a specialist construction company.

Go out and hire a professional engineer if they are so cheap. No? Can't afford them? It's like the difference between a builder and a plumber/electrician. Sure, electricity and water sure is nice, but an actual house is what we need.

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 03:45:00 am

Please state where I said we were going to deploy 50,000+ men for foreign aid?

Wasn't... Wasn't the very premise of this argument that you think we need more men for foreign aid? Isn't that the very corner stone of your point?

See before, defence from future conflict, and blowing illegal immigrants out of the water.

Quote from: Max White on April 08, 2013, 03:10:48 am

Quote from: kingfisher1112 on April 08, 2013, 03:08:49 am

So combat engineers who would otherwise do nothing being sent to do stuff is less effective then engineers here building infrastructure here and are under the command of private companies who have no interests in small, poor nations?

No they wouldn't be doing nothing, they would have civilian jobs. Remember, the idea is to not have these positions in the first place.
You aren't very good at this, are you?

Lol, Max, you're right. The argument was extremely circular: we need combat engineers because they have to build infrastructure in poor countries. And we need to send them to build infrastructure in poor countries because otherwise they won't have anything to do!

Are you paying attention? Civilian engineers are employed by private corporations. Combat engineers are not. It costs less in foreign aid to send military personnel than hire civilian personnel to do so.