Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Peter Dutton is ‘really bad’ at preparing Australia for war: Labor" video.

OK so the average defence spend by the Howard government over 10 years was 1.77% of GDP. Under The 6 succeeding years of Labor it was 1.72% so yes technically it was lower but by only 0.5%. Also the preceding Hawke/Keating government averaged 1.98% so more than the Liberals spent. Do some research, because pulling out just one years data is deliberately misleading. I could point to the defence budget under the conservative government of 1939 to show you how low defence spending can get.
2
@stopthemediaswaronmen3029 A ridiculous comment without a shred of evidence.
2
@Finke. Nope you obviously don't. The Chinese have 3 LPDs and another 5 in planing construction. Be specific not your airy fairly sit on the fence reply of nothingless.
2
There was always the stories of the leopards driving in reserve so as not to roll the odometer over and I remember in the cav running out of track miles on ex in the NT, we were crossing the Vic river at the time and spent a comfortable couple of days idyly sitting on the bank as higher sorted things out.
1
Melody Melody That is a straight out falsehood and lie. In actual fact Labor increased spending immediately after the Howard Government and then reduced it but overall on average was only 0.5% less than the ten years of Howard liberals. Happy for you to attempt to fact check me.
1
@NicholasFerrante A completely baseless assertion without a shred of evidence to support it. In actual fact in every theatre of war since WWII the ADF has dominated. It has only been political decisions to withdraw from certain conflicts, but I repeat cite a battle anywhere in the last 80 years Aussie soldiers lost, go on just one.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 I agree with you Menzies allowed naval communications and spying infrastructure, but For Australia is pointing to the continuous US Marine troop presence in Darwin initiated by the Gillard government.
1
@NicholasFerrante Name the enemy? Because if you had any knowledge of military capabilities there is only one country in the world with the naval capacity to isolate and or invade Australia and that's the US. How many amphibious warships with the range to reach Australia do you think the Chinese have?
1
@Finke. I just proved with exact data I do. Your meaningless drivel adds nothing to the discussion.
1
@LukeXMV Technically 1 Jan 1901.
1
@LukeXMV I see what you are getting at but legally and technically I am right, culturally yes we are still connected to the UK.
1
@AximandTheCursed I’ll bite. What was worthless about your technically incorrect description of the “Attack class” SSG? It had by far the superior range, sensor fit out, and weapon capability than any of its competitors. Also Dutton was on the National security committee that approved it, despite the fact at the time the French offered us the Barracuda class and we knocked it back. The Attack boats were a perfect fit as a defensive SSK capability, but obviously no where near as capable in the offensive capability as a SSN.
1
@AximandTheCursed So I asked a perfectly respectful question and even added the cavet of the obvious advantages of a SSN. Either your reading comprehension skills are lacking or you are being deliberately ignorant. I said from the competition that was provided to the NSC as to which SS they could select the Attack class was clearly the better option. You idioticly created a strawman. I never suggested a SS can out range a SSN but the Attack class was never compared to a SSN only other SS. As the defence requirement at the time the range provided by the Attack class was more than sufficient. You simply never understood the requirement as laid out in successive White papers or the competitive process put in place or the final three choices the NSC chose from. Finally fuck off moron.
1