This is a typical Politician who thinks He Owns Everything……………..

As stated, you assume what political persuasion each debater is on and attempt to use this as denigration of your opponent. As demonstrated by your comments of "You guys just keep on amazing me."

To assume what side of a debate one sits on before raising a point is again stupid... which is exactly what you decided. YOU decided this was a Coalition and Labor debate, IN FACT IT IS NOT.

YOU decided that this was about policy of Coalition and Labor policy. IN FACT IT IS NOT.

AND as you show that you have decided that each side of a debate has to be of a political persuasion to predetermine what side a debate everybody sits on, clearly demonstrates that what I state as being the problem of yours, is true. When you have the arrogance to determine what political persuasion everybody sits, you try and predetermine what these people agree with.

Talk about arrogance, "... Um all debates have predetermined sides, the participants choose either the Affirmative or Negative before the debate begins .. DAH " clearly in your comment you forgot to say... "depending on their political persuasion" That was the arrogance you started with when you stated "You guys just keep on amazing me." And don't try and pretend that this was not made in those terms. as your next statement was clear to your intent. "I would love to debate you on coalition policies"

You have had plenty of opportunity to do so, YOU had the arrogance to decide that this was what this thread was about... It never has crossed your mind that others might not have a political persuasion but decide what they believe is to be righ?

 

garry I'm not going to ask you for proof of the email. I'm also not going to try and disprove its allegations. I have been keeping an eye out on the media but so far no sign of a story relating to it. And that's not because the media are not on watch, look at the silly fuss over repository/suppository from Abbott, a total non-story but it had a day or two outing in the media. I feel sure that the email from Hugh would have had a run by now if it were fair dinkum.

 

Ordinary duties? What, you mean being grounded and unused? Here, let me tell the rest of the army that.

HEY!!! GUYS IN THE GHAN! COME HOME NOW, YOU ARE FAILING YOUR REGULAR DUTIES BECAUSE OF ALL THAT WAR TIMEY STUFF (that you have been trained for, but let's not get into that) THAT YOU ARE DOING. THOSE LINES BACK HOME AREN'T GOING TO CLEAN THEMSELVES!!!

As to the rest of your idiotic argument, military transports have been used by Federal Ministers for a long time, it's sort of a precedent for them when they are going into war torn areas, you know, because of the possible dangers presented by going via civilian transports. It's not a 'diversion of regular duties', it IS, however, a military transport being used in a way that it has been trained to be used.

 

So if you’re so convinced that this was simply routine, who paid for this flight. Is it routine for the military to cover the cost of flying government officials around the world for photo opps so they can give the people the impression he is bringing the troops home??? Simply so when the clown calls the election he can claim he brought the troops home??? Gillard had already put this in motion and given in the next few months most of the troops he met will be in Australia, WHY fly over?


The point has nothing to do with how he went or who took him, simply where did the funds come from, WHAT ACCOUNT. since being in office the ALP have cut spending to extent that many have bought their own protection to cover short falls in funding by this current government. Pensions have been cut and funding diverted to other areas. So is it reasonable for the military to put the funds up for a trip of this magnitude for a photo opp to simply give people the impression he was the instrument of the withdrawal???

I would also ask, shouldn’t Rudd cover the cost of his wife trip, As all MP’s have to do when taking their wives or family on tax payer funded trips??? Much has been made over that over the years, by both sides.

 

I understand what you’re saying about the email, but this really is a question of propriety. Where did the funds come from? Really my only issue was the fact he took his wife and it would seem that on equivalent stage, other MP's have to cover the cost. The fact that this was simply a junket to give the impression that Rudd was instrumental in the withdrawal of the troops when in reality this was determined two years prior by Gillard. Flashy way to get this message out there but also considering the cost of this jaunt is extraordinary for one person's election chances... Not a good look at all.

Again, I do expect this style of thing from Abbott and believe me I will be asking the same of him... Huge waste of tax payer funds to get some free election campaigning in

- - - Updated - - -

I understand what you’re saying about the email, but this really is a question of propriety. Where did the funds come from? Really my only issue was the fact he took his wife and it would seem that on equivalent stage, other MP's have to cover the cost. The fact that this was simply a junket to give the impression that Rudd was instrumental in the withdrawal of the troops when in reality this was determined two years prior by Gillard. Flashy way to get this message out there but also considering the cost of this jaunt is extraordinary for one person's election chances... Not a good look at all.

Again, I do expect this style of thing from Abbott and believe me I will be asking the same of him... Huge waste of tax payer funds to get some free election campaigning in

 

I didn't say it was routine, I said that there is a precedent for military aircraft to give passage to Federal Ministers. As for the costs associated, you would have to ask the Pay Corps how it was funded. That said, if Defense was forced to cover the costs, they still would have been reimbursed by the government, since military funding is directed by Commanders, any deviance from funding is liable to be reimbursed.

As to why did he fly over, he is the Prime Minister. Is he not allowed to visit deployed troops? Is there some sort of meeting I missed where they said that was not allowed?

For someone asking where the funding was coming from, you seem to go off on a lot of unrelated tangents.

 

I understand what you’re saying about the email, but this really is a question of propriety. Where did the funds come from? Really my only issue was the fact he took his wife and it would seem that on equivalent stage, other MP's have to cover the cost. The fact that this was simply a junket to give the impression that Rudd was instrumental in the withdrawal of the troops when in reality this was determined two years prior by Gillard. Flashy way to get this message out there but also considering the cost of this jaunt is extraordinary for one person's election chances... Not a good look at all.

Again, I do expect this style of thing from Abbott and believe me I will be asking the same of him... Huge waste of tax payer funds to get some free election campaigning in

 

We assume this to be the case, but will it??? Or will this be from the military budget cut (at a time of war) to bulk the government coffers which is sorely lacking through poor management (not that I intended to make this party issue). So this style of trip would appear to me as a waste of tax payer funding to simply portray an impression of something that is not true. I am still waiting for the claim of credit for withdrawal of the troops, which would be the last straw in demonstrating the absurd personality of this GIT.

Not at all, as said I do not have a problem with the trip in itself. Simply the apparent motive and intent of the trip is questionable. Really if I could prove the point I would demand the ALP pay the entire account for the junket...

True, I do sometimes, but really that was my original question due entirely to the fact, trips of such nature by heads of state are to boost troop morale, Nothing boosts troop morale than bringing them home. Heads of state do not tend to flit about to let them know personally they are coming home unless there is Altera motive. I think the election is good Altera motive, don't you?.

 

It will have to be. Considering that he is the PM, nothing he does will go unscrutinised. As well, if it was not done above board, or there was shonky dealings, considering everything defense does is transparent, the fault would be found and followed through the chain of command.

Every PM has done a round with deployed troops. It always happens. It always will happen. As well, it is always a nice morale boost to have a visit from the PM. It's nice to know that we aren't forgotten.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) bringing us home raises morale. We are trained to fight. We like putting our training to good use. During the long peace, we lost a lot of experience, so we took on peace-keeping roles (in Timor-Leste, Solomons and with the UN) so that we could put our training to good use. 'Bringing the troops home' is something to boost points with people on the home front, not the soldiers.

What you may not realise is that soldiers sign up in order to deploy. We want to be out there, not stuck at home. At home, we have to do drill, and that is the biggest morale-killer ever.

 

Well in present times it appears that scrutiny and injustice seem to be lost when you consider in the last few terms of government many things do not get the attention they should. For example (and I only use this as the first thing that came to mind for obvious reasons) The pink batts fiasco. This farce went on far too long until people died. Sure there were rumblings but no outcry. So after a few years, these political types now use this as fodder for election promises. Frankly quite disgusting, but something needs to be done to hold them to account for such a demonstrative screw up that needlessly claimed lives. (Again just an example) So I get very cynical when you see these styles of things.

And I have no problem with the trip happening. Simply the fact the entire thing was designed more as a show case of Rudd and not for the purpose of troops as it should be...

Well you have me there. Yep I have it wrong... However, your last sentence is spot on, and I could not agree more. Of course it is the main point of bringing the troops home, this is exactly why Gillard made the change to deployment of returning the troops a year earlier than planned to placate the minority of people who disbelieved in the war and the growing concern for the type of war our soldiers faced. Have they won??? I am not sure as Taliban actions still appear to be occurring but I am sure they did Australia proud and still stand to high honours around the world.

BUT on this point I bow to the fact that I was wrong here… NO EXCUSES.

 

That is a problem of the media, not of the system itself. Odds are that this trip is all above board and met the requirements. Nothing fishy is likely to be going on here, especially not in the funding for the trip, since military spending is watched like hawks. Inconsistencies are always found and explored, and people are always found when they have screwed up or wroughted the system. Nothing goes without being found.

But again, that is nothing new. Soldiers have always been used as ways for political parties to eschew their credentials. That still doesn't mean that it does not have benefits for the soldiers.

We are doing an effective job in the Ghan. Yes, the Taliban is still there, but they have no where near the power or foothold that they once had. Aussie troops have a world-wide reputation for being great soldiers, both in the field and with the local populaces that they patrol. The truth is that we have rested a large amount of control from Taliban forces and put them back into the hands of the Afghan military (with Aussie troops working primarily as support).

This is not an easy war to win because it is not a conventional war, but we are doing well and stabilising the region. By the time we leave, we should (in theory) leave it at a level that the Afghan military forces should be capable of handling the situation by themselves.

 

May I suggest that if soldiers voluntarily sign up to be deployed into foreign countries, then your commanders should be telling the general public the truth about those facts.

The general public NEVER hears about military personnel voluntarily signing up to do active duty in foreign countries. The majority of the public believes military personnel are sent to these countries against their will, and that is the reason why the public want the troops returned home.

When Australian military personnel died in foreign countries, the media portray these deaths as the soldiers being the innocent victims without choice, and not individuals who choose, and sign up to be in these dangerous locations putting their skills to the test.

It might be advantageous for everyone to know the “real” truth, and for military personnel to start telling the media THEY sign-up and choose to be in these situations, and nothing is being forced upon them.

Doesn’t quite seem honourable wanting to play the “big bad wolf” as a military unit, and then the “damsel in distress” to the media when it suits.

 

Well, why else would we sign up for military service? I thought it might be obvious.

They're not victims, but we do honour their sacrifice.

It would be more advantageous if people used a bit of common sense every once in a while.

We don't play the damsel in distress.

 

The majority of people understand the concept of military service, but not many “outside” a military career would know that soldiers voluntarily sign-up for deployment in dangerous locations. The majority would think soldiers are sent to these places by their Governments for a political agenda. Hence, the reason why citizens want their Government too: “bring the troops home” when a ratio of military deaths don’t seem warranted for the circumstance.

The media portray military personnel who are killed as innocent “victims” and not soldiers who voluntarily sign-up for deployment, to test their skills in combat.

To date, not one military commander has held a media conference or spoken to a media representative after an Australian military soldier has died, and told them the individual/s who were killed, voluntarily sign-up for deployment into those dangerous areas. The general public is not privy to the fundamentals of military deployment, and how it works.

Therefore, the general public not having any knowledge of how military deployment works, just see soldiers being told when & where to go without choice or options like puppets.

The general public might have a better understanding of the situation if they knew and were told all the facts and the truth regarding military deployment.

Would it be so difficult for the military to give a media release on this subject for the understanding and benefit for everyone?

Maybe if the public were told the facts about troop deployment and how it works, they would not be on the governments back to bring the troops home.

 

I'll tell it how it is! You are a complete fool! This stupid, looney response is just hot wind from an obvious nutjob who lives and breathes cynicism and pessimism!

The world is okay, you don't have to hide in a cave living off tin food!

 

The point has been well made in the thread that politicians will always use the military - especially when deployed overseas - for political opportunity. We're a cynical lot, we know why they do it, but the military themselves obviously appreciate a visit even though it's probably a pain in the arse for them, bit like when your mother in law is due for a visit and you have to tidy the house up. But if it's good for morale then fair enough. I would have thought better work conditions and wages and benefits would also do that but that's another issue I suppose. Anyway I'd be very surprised if a pollie made a visit and it wasn't publicised.

 

Quick question. When a person decides and trains to become a boxer, do people "outside" the boxing world not know that the boxer voluntarily signs up to participate in bouts? Because that is the exact same situation, with just a different profession.

Are you serious? They're not portrayed as innocent victims, they're portrayed as people who were willing to sacrifice themselves for the security and safety of others, as people who made the great sacrifice. They are portrayed as heroes, and we grieve for their loss.

You mean that no commander has ever stated the obvious?

Only time we don't have a choice is the internal postings inside Oz. Otherwise, we sign up to go on deployment. At the moment, there are not enough deployment opportunities for most soldiers, which makes it hard for a reservist like me to get onto those postings. In fact, the majority of Australian troops are currently posted INSIDE Australia, with only a fraction ever actually on active deployment.

Would it be so diffucult to use a little common sense?

Please, they still would be, because the reason that many people are against certain wars (Iraq comes to mind) is the justification for GOING to the war, it has little to nothing to do with the soldiers. People wanted us in Afghanistan after 9/11, because that was where the threat originated from, and the Taliban refused to hand over the responsible party.

People aren't anti-war because they want the troops home, they're anti-war because they would prefer peaceful resolution, but sometimes peaceful resolution is not an option.

 

And this is the problem. Sure it is good for the troops and sure they all go about publicising the visits. BUT when the intent is to simply put such things as returning the troops and look at me I am such a good leader... No electioneering needs to be paid by the party. I am cynical and make no apology for that but this is so blatantly a ploy for the election and excused by "they all do it". No, after cutting defence budgets and pensions... with more cuts to other programs, increases to taxes and new taxes to cover mismanagement, this was wasted money for the benefit of one man who enjoys flying around the world running a country by mobile phone, so when it is simply for the benefit of politicians they should have to pay...

 

I hope that you are right and I gather after a time, should there be any issue it will surface, BUT as I said, I am still cynical of this.

But (and I only interject due to that cynicism) Shouldn't the soldiers be the main benefit not simple a side benefit? If he had simply gone over there rubbed a few shoulders and shook a few hands maybe said thanks and how respected they are for their sacrifices then I would totally agree. BUT no, "it was you have won the war so now you’re coming home, aren't I great to be doing that?" announcing policy like it is his own, flying to best setting to make the statement more effective and giving a side benefit to the soldiers??? I question the cost of such actions.

But that other tangent that was really my first thought, who paid for his wife to go over? As mentioned before, other MP's have to pay for their wives to travel with their husbands on tax payer trips, but not this one...

BTW, I would think that the soldiers might think more of meeting his wife then him. Tongue in cheek, simply because if you did not know, I seriously question this scumbags character due to other reasons I have posted on the forum you may not be aware of.

You know, I really believe you are selling the efforts short here. From what I hear the Australian soldier is considered extremely incredible around the world and not just here. BUT I here better of their efforts than you are letting on...

I don't think a war like this can be won with simple force. The problem began when the world ignored the plight of Afghanistan after their war with the USSR. This grew the problem to the extremes we see today. That complacency creates such a group as the Taliban and now the World is reaping that reward. Forgive me if you think I mean we should not have gone, nothing is further from the truth but simple force is not going to create a situation of peace unless it is followed up with support. I believe the Australian troops do far more than just advise... BUT I am sure you could tell me more about that. That is why I think you sell the soldiers efforts short the added activities they carry out for the people of Afghanistan.

 

Be as cynical as you want. The fact remains, however, that there are standards and procedures, and that they would have been met because it is the defence force and we really don't screw around with these sorts of things.

For the first part, about the hand shaking and rubbing shoulders, that all would have been done. If the soldiers were to be the main people benefiting, then no politician would ever actually go over to see our deployed troops. Truth is that all the things that pollies do in regards to defense can easily be done from the comfort of Australia. They don't actually have to go over in the first place. But they do, and they do it for the media recognition, and all pollies do it. If it wasn't for that media recognition, the pollies would have to go over on the sly, and what is a politician that shies away from the limelight?

Again, there would be a standard procedure for this. If this was not done correctly, somebody would be having a hard go of it. Trust me.

I don't trust any politician, so don't worry, I understand the cynicism. And, of course soldiers would prefer their wives or families, but we know what we sign up for when we go on deployment. I would rather know that my family was safe and sound back home than with me in the (*)(*)(*)(*)fight of a place.

I don't mean to. Aussie soldiers do have a fantastic reputation worldwide, for both their conduct with the locals and their abilities in the field. I thought that that was the gist of what I was saying, but I may have improperly worded myself.

We do far more than advise. That said, most of our patrols and efforts are being pulled back to allow the Afghan military to fall into those responsibilities. It used to be that coalition forces made the bulk of the fighting force, but now we are able to pull back due to the efforts of all the soldiers in the Ghan. Now, we personally don't need to focus so much on doing it ourselves as we do permitting, supporting and aiding the Afghan military, which was our long term goal anyway.

 

Apples and Oranges. All RAAF flights are training flights unless they are operational flights, but a few trips between Canberra and Melbourne for 34SQN (VIP Transport Squadron based in Canberra) ie what they are paid to do; and are quite a bit different then a non-operational round trip to the MidEast with 33SQN (one of a few Tanker/Transport jets serving the entire Air Combat Group) purely for election photo-ops.... if that is what happened.

 

says it all!