Of course. Someone has be some kind of wack job to believe otherwise, especially after all this time.

You don't know me or know what I do, but it actually takes a lot for me to loose composure... And nothing on the internet is capable of that, when you have had to handle deceased children, everything else is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

So I suggest you stop fabricating false fairy-tales to push your own narrative.

I have already touched base on this and provided the appropriate evidence.

Correct. And I never claimed anything to the contrary.

I would be the superior officer and no one would be above me at a going incident, if I chose that role. (As it's based on experience and rank) - Sometimes I will delegate someone else that role so I can be on the pointy end of the hose and have a play.
As long as I can justify that I made an appropriate risk assessment with the information I had on hand, then I am protected.

No. Evidence wouldn't be fabricated, but that's also not what happened in that war.

Nothing is really "illegal" in my world but many things are frowned upon as I am protected by various acts like the fire and emergency services act which actually gives me a ton of powers, like commandeering civilian vehicles, exceeding speed limits and driving through red traffic lights, closing down highways and entering any building/dwelling I want.

Consequently I've had to make tough choices on which homes to save and which to let burn, with zero knowledge of any occupants being present.
So I base the decision on a "bigger picture" to determine the best area to defend for maximum impact to the fire front to ultimately save more homes in the long run.

It's using overall experience, rather than low-level, specific, knowledge of the "boots on the ground" perspective.

And I would assume the US military made that same determination, I'm not going to pretend they made the right or wrong choice, but I respect they made a choice... Likely a tougher choice than you have ever had to make in your life.

I never claimed the civilians were enemies or innocent. But nice try at shifting the goal post.

The countries as in the "entity" that drives that countries projection of power, corruption and hostility are not our friends.

Correct. I am.
Because it's still evidence from a governing body based on medical science that says it's safe and effective, it pertains closer to you than me as our nation has it's own vaccines with it's own testing and validation.

You cannot import American medicines here willy-nilly without it being approved by our medical professionals as we operate a different safety standard.

All vaccines have side effects, the vaccine is still safer than the real virus.

Australia contributed heavily in researching, producing and shipping COVID vaccines.
We work closely with other governing bodies to achieve great results.

And yes we did manufacture COVID vaccines.
https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/about-rollout/vaccine-agreements

My country is independent and sovereign.

I've already provided the evidence that Australia contributes to the World Health Organization, but we don't need to adhere to WHO guidelines if it's not in our best interest.

And yes, I know exactly what emergency use authorization means. Remember my partner is an Ambulance officer.

I need to give you praise this time around for not propagating the lie that COVID was a hoax, while constantly acknowledging it's existence, so there is less of that hypocrisy this time around, bravo.

@Permalite

Lets continue with the first point. As I explained to you and showed you infomation the US Government illegally invaded Iraq. A country which had no links to terrorisim. Yet the Republicans at the time created a false pretext. The US claims were unsubstantiated and as a consequence the United Nations Security Council declared an invasion of Iraq would be illegal. To which you said:

"Correct. And I never claimed anything to the contrary."

Yet you are claiming to the contrary. Have a look at what your writing:

"And often you need to make 'hard choices' based on little information or possible what-if scenarios to keep people safe."

"Consequently I've had to make tough choices on which homes to save and which to let burn, with zero knowledge of any occupants being present."

"I'm not going to pretend they made the right or wrong choice, but I respect they made a choice... Likely a tougher choice than you have ever had to make in your life."

As I asked you before, would someone in your line of work fabricate evidence, present it to your superior officers and then act illegally in your own interests when your superior officers have declared your actions would be illegal?

As someone who is sworn to protect life, surely you can see the paradox in what you are saying. Actually lets take this a step further. A lot of American families would have sent their children to fight in a illegal war, where George Bush, Dick Cheeney, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and many others from both political parties acted in their own interests. The only person in Washington who called these criminals out was Donald Trump. In fact Trump pulled American men and women service men out of the Middle East and ended the forever wars. He's the only President in Washington who fought to protect the lives of those service men and women. I suppose thats not in line with your 'sworn duty' to protect life and property...

"The countries as in the "entity" that drives that countries projection of power, corruption and hostility are not our friends."

Then your telling what I already know. These countries are run by corrupt governments. Although I'm looking into information about Vladimir Putin but I haven't had a chance to watch his Tucker Carson interview yet.

"I never claimed the civilians were enemies or innocent."

Well we're getting somewhere now. You've gone from saying that these countries are your enemies to now admitting that the people in those countries are not your enemies but its their corrupt governments that are your enemies.

"And yes we did manufacture COVID vaccines."
https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/about-rollout/vaccine-agreements

Not sure if you checked your own link, it dosen't say that there. It even says that 'the vaccine is manufactured overseas'. It irrelevant whether Australia manufuactures these products because the patient on these products are protected by American coporation laws meaning that it dosen't matter if your country is 'independent and sovereign' because the Australian government has no intellectual property rights over the manufacture of these products. In fact if you look into this the patient is designed so that the end user is not allowed to know the ingredients of whats inside these 'vaccines'.

"And yes, I know exactly what emergency use authorization means. Remember my partner is an Ambulance officer."

Then you know that these vaccines have not passed the clinlical safety trials. They were brought to market under emergency use authorization. Its the technical term to indemnify the vaccine companies and the Government should you drop dead from their vaccine. Your Government is telling you something is safe and effective but it hasn't passed the clincal safety trials... Is that in line with your duty to 'protect life'?

"I need to give you praise this time around for not propagating the lie that COVID was a hoax".

You lost composure and played your moderator card to avoid informed debate. I had no choice. If you like we can get into that later, but you ignore what threatens your beliefs. We've only just got past the Iraq war, which your only just let slip was illegal. We will get the pandemic business when we get through the basic points first.

I'm trying to connect the dots..... when Iraq was invaded we found unsafe covid vaccine? Sorry I'm still trying to connect Iraq to covid.

Americans were generally well aware that there were no WMDs 6 months later.

Obama didn't stay there because of WMDs or because Democrats were sure that there were WMDs. 

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf">These polls were taken only a few months after things started

So you're telling us to watch a propaganda piece that you admit you haven't watched.

>Who is telling your Russia is your enemy? The Federal Government? If you want to know more about whats going on between Russia and Ukraine I suggest you watch Tuker Carson's interview with Vladimir Putin.

How can you be sure of anything?

You could read more of the article:

>The Australian Government has entered into a 10-year partnership with Moderna and the Victorian Government that will see Moderna build an mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility at Monash University Victoria.

>Biopharmaceutical company CSL manufactured the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia. The TGA provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine for use in Australia on 15 February 2021.

You stopped at Pfizer, the first vaccine and made assumptions about the other 4 listed.

Also I should add to the previous post, Pfizer-BioNTech is a collaboration between a German BioNTech which made the vaccine and the Pfizer which did the clinical trials. 

This is not what EUA means.

This talks about the differences in process

>The EUA process for a vaccine is similar to the BLA, or full approval, process in most ways. A manufacturer must conduct laboratory research, followed by animal testing, and submit an application. Phase I, II, and III clinical trials run as they normally would, as does the FDA assessment of manufacturing practices.

Trump pushed Operation Warp Speed

Which did a number of things. It put out a lot of money for vaccine research and it specifically was set up to run the 3 clinical trials at the same time, as opposed to the normal process which runs one after the next. 

Well using the moderator card is something we have to do when it looks like someone is trolling. 
And to be fair, it's easy to lose composure when someone fails to read past the first paragraph, among other failures of understanding an issue.

"Watch the Putin/Tucker Carlson interview for the truth!"

*Hasn't watched it himself* 💀💀💀

Just say "April Fools!" and save yourself man. 😂

Why are we getting so hung up on Iraq?

“Both sides are the same!”

“How?”

“Let me tell you about something that happened 21 years ago!”

@the-pi-guy 

At the moment I'm dealing with the other guy, I don't have much time to engage you, but I will respond because you have threatened to pull out the moderator card again when you saw the other guy is loosing ground.

"Americans were generally well aware that there were no WMDs 6 months later."

I actually posted the link, which I will do so again:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/

What are you talking about? What I reffered to is how the pretext for war never existed in the first place since the evidence presented by Dick Cheeney was unsubstantiated. 

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/03/1151160567/colin-powell-iraq-un-weapons-mass-destruction

If you read the second link, there was insuffient evidence presented to the United Nations Security Council who did not sanction the US invasion of Iraq and deemed an invasion of Iraq illegal. Now explain to me how it is trolling to show you the evidence?

"So you're telling us to watch a propaganda piece that you admit you haven't watched."

I haven't seen it yet, but I like to watch both sides of the argument so I can discern who is telling the truth. In this case I can't say if its a propaganda peice because I haven't see it, but then again neither have you.

"You could read more of the article:"

Check the article you are asking me to read:

"In September 2021, the Australian Government purchased an additional 1 million Moderna doses from European Union member states."

At the time of mandatory vaccinations the Australian Government purchased... You stopped at Moderna and made assumptions about the other 4. Let me help you with that:

"The Australian Government advises that the AstraZeneca vaccine is no longer available in Australia."...

"The Australian Government advises that the Novavax ancestral vaccine is no longer available in Australia."

As your next point:

"The Australian Government has entered into a 10-year partnership with Moderna and the Victorian Government that will see Moderna build an mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility at Monash University Victoria."

If you look at what I said, I actually said that its irrelevant whether Australia manufactures these vaccines or not because the respective American cooporations hold patents on these products so the end user can't know whats in them. I only used the manufacture argument because that guy who responded to my comment didn't read the link he posted. It looks like neither did you...

By the way a 10-year partnership usually dosen't mean that the vaccines are manufactured straight away, it means this is a 10-process. At the time of the vaccine mandate they wouldn't have been manufacturing at that point, since the time scale was 10 years, which you've kindly reminded us of.

"The EUA process for a vaccine is similar to the BLA, or full approval, process in most ways. A manufacturer must conduct laboratory research, followed by animal testing, and submit an application. Phase I, II, and III clinical trials run as they normally would, as does the FDA assessment of manufacturing practices."

Have a look at the FDA website:

"FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. "

Unapproved medical products, only in the instant of no other medication being avaliable, in addition to the vaccines having not passed the clinical trials.

"Well using the moderator card is something we have to do when it looks like someone is trolling."

Its trolling to disagree with everything you say and provide evidence for it? Even when you provide the evidence yourself. Are you sure Vladimir Putin is the dictator here?

@A203D can you simply spell out what you mean by Covid being a hoax? I think there could be miscommunication here between you and the others.

A) There is no such thing as Covid19

B) Covid19 is real but the governments' of the world reaction to it was something other than trying to mitigate the risk of a new disease to the human population

C) something else



Also Perma is absolutely right Saddam was into using chemical weapons, something most people fail to acknowledge. Why don't you do some research on the Iraqi Chemical Weapons Program. There are some Kurdish survivors that could tell you about Mustard Gas, Tabun, and even Sarin Gas (do you remember the movie The Rock? I only ask since you keep referring people to Vice). Hell they tried unsuccessfully to develop VX gas. Did they have nukes, what most people associate with the phrase "weapons of mass destruction". No, they didn't have nukes (although Saddam was pursuing them), but they were not afraid to use chemical warfare on even their own people to quash those pesky uprisings. All that said did the US target the country responsible for 9/11 ... nope. It just sticks in my craw when people say " but but but Iraq didn't even have WMDs." They did (at least at points in time) and were not afraid to use them. If you tell me exactly where and when you are going to look for something, chances are I am going to be able to hide it from you.

In his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” Trump argued that a military strike on Iraq might be necessary.

Trump wrote that the US still did not know the true status of Iraq’s nuclear program. He then wrote, “I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.”

He continued: “Am I being contradictory here, by presenting myself as a deal-maker and then recommending preemptive strikes? I don’t think so. There’s nothing really comparable to unleashing a squadron of bombers, but in the world of business sometimes you have to make quick, secret, decisive moves in order to gain a negotiating advantage.”

When radio host Howard Stern asked Trump in September 2002 if he is “for invading Iraq,” Trump responded, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Trump did not express a firm opinion about the looming war in a Fox interview in January 2003, saying that “either you attack or don’t attack” and that President George W. Bush “has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps.”

The day after the invasion in March 2003, Trump told Fox: “It looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”

Trump started publicly expressing negative or skeptical thoughts about the war shortly after it began. He called the war a “mess” in a brief comment at an Academy Awards after-party later in the week of the invasion. Six months into the war, Trump said, “It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq.”

Still, Trump did not express definitive opposition in 2003. In a MSNBC appearance in November 2003, he lamented US spending on the war and said that “the question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place” – but he continued: “I don’t think that this president can do anything about that. He is really – he is on a course that has to stay.”

In December 2003, Trump told Fox that the war had been “tougher than people thought,” but he added, “It just seems to be something that, we are there now, we have to stay, we have to win, otherwise we just won’t have the same respect.”

It wasn’t until more than a year after the invasion that Trump conveyed explicit opposition to the war.

He told Stern in April 2004 that “Iraq is a terrible mistake.” Trump was quoted in Esquire magazine in July 2004 lamenting deaths and injuries among Americans and Iraqis, saying, “And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!”

Speaking to CNN’s Larry King in December 2004, Trump said, “Hopefully, we’ll be getting out.” He had become vehement by April 2006, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “I would do something to get out of that war as quickly as possible.”

Fact check: Trump falsely claims, again, to have opposed the invasion of Iraq | CNN Politics

So...You're wrong, again. As for Trump ending forever wars, I'll repost my comment which you conveniently ignored.

Biden vs Trump 2024 Political Platforms, Policies and Issues

"It was Obama who pulled America out of Iraq. It was Biden who pulled America out of Afghanistan.

Trump didn't start any new wars but he did escalate a few of the ones he inherited, he increased troop levels, In 2019, air strikes from the US and its allies in Afghanistan killed 700 civilians, more than in any other year since the beginning of the war in 2001 and 2002. The US dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than any other year since the Pentagon began keeping a tally in 2006.

He vetoed a measure to force the end to U.S. Involvement in Yemen War. He vetoed bills intended to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia, he destroyed all progress we were making on Iran with the nuclear deal. He assassinated an Iranian General which could have quickly spiralled out of control. Trump was never anti-war and just as hawkish as other Presidents.

He did abandon USA's allies in the Kurds though so I suppose he is anti-war in the sense that he will throw allies under the bus, like most recently when he said he would not defend a NATO country, America's allies if Russia attacked them and I quote "I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want." Totally anti-war."

Says it all really, you tell us to "research stuff" for ourselves to know the truth, then it turns out you haven't done any yourself.

Yes because it's basic knowledge that when someone says "Russia is our enemy" they don't mean "Every Russian in the world is my enemy" but the country of Russia and its leaders. It'd be like you tutting at someone for saying Nazi Germany is our enemy during WW2 and getting them to clarify they mean the leaders only, we know what they mean, spare us the pedantic nonsense.

I just searched up COVID vaccine ingredients and found dozens of links listing ingredients in the vaccine, Lol.

What COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 contains:

• The active substance is tozinameran.

After dilution, the vial contains 6 doses, of 0.3 mL with 30 micrograms tozinameran each.

• This vaccine contains polyethylene glycol/macrogol (PEG) as part of ALC-0159

The other ingredients are:

• ALC-0315 = (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
• ALC-0159 = 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
• 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
• cholesterol
• potassium chloride
• potassium dihydrogen phosphate
• sodium chloride
• disodium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate
• sucrose
• water for injections

ARCHIVE: Information for UK recipients on Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Regulation 174) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Yes they did.

Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines did have clinical trials | Reuters

None of your stuff is informed debate, it's baseless conspiracy theories with no facts to back it up.

Tough. You put yourself in that position when you started posting dangerous nonsensical conspiracy theories.

In resolution ES‑11/4, the General Assembly declares that the sham referendums held in the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, which were conducted under disputed circumstances and unrecognised by the international community, as well as their subsequent annexation by Russia, are invalid and illegal under international law. It calls upon all states to not recognise these territories as part of Russia. Furthermore, it demands that Russia "immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw" from Ukraine as it is violating its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The resolution was passed with an overwhelming vote of 143 in favour, 5 against and 35 abstaining.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4 - Wikipedia

Since you're using the UN for this argument, I'll provide you here, the UN saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal, unjust and calling for them to leave all territory of Ukraine. So you now agree that Russia's invasion is wrong, right? Or did the UN suddenly turn corrupt between the Iraq invasion and the Ukraine invasion?

...

One dude invaded a country for no reason other than wanting a land grab.

America's invasion of Iraq = Bad but Russia's invasion of Ukraine = Hmm, we must listen to both sides.

Again, Tucker's own lawyers say you can't take the stuff he says as fact because he doesn't report facts, Tucker has never been a legit journalist and that's the reason Putin used him, dozens of journalists have been trying to get interviews with Putin and only Tucker was allowed, Lol. But it'd be like watching an interview with Hitler and listening to him justify his invasion of Poland.

Why assume that Pi hasn't seen the interview? We aren't all like you where we claim to research something then later admit we didn't have a clue what we were talking about.

You've posted evidence for nothing so far, not your claim that COVID was a hoax, not your claim that the election was stolen.