Australia - you're standing in it
On a lighter note, the excitement (for some) about submarine jobs for Australia reminds me of the classic "hit" song "Is We Is" from way back when Flora - a small town in Illinois - was competing with 33 other communities to become the site of a new prison - jobs jobs jobs.
The police chief thought a semi rap type song might help and created the lyric of the century:
"Is we is or is we isn't gonna get ourselves a prison?"
Crazy cargo cult small town USA stuff
Flora never got a prison
Bonza I genuinely feel sorry for you and for the overwhelming majority of Australian people for being so saturated in deep rooted fear and for not being able to step outside of the Anglosphere echo chamber and narrative control.
If you were to crowbar your mind out of it you'll realise that the overwhelming majority of the world's population left destabilised and war-torn, underdeveloped and in poverty, and raped and pillaged by the West - again, large chunks of Africa, Latin America, central Asia, southeast Asia, China, Russia, the Middle East, the Islamic Kingdom, India, etc - believe that the world is at a crucial historical turning point at which the balance of geopolitical power is shifting and finally enabling them to get out from under the West's colonial and post-WW2 tyrannical oppression and subjugation, and finally get out of poverty and onto the path of freedom, development and improving their living standards and way of life.
AUKUS is just an attempt at dragging out this tyrannical oppression, largely aimed at China, because China is the main country driving this shifting balance of geopolitical power and now trying to work with the less developed nations. In doing this, China is directly going against the West's strategy of oppression and exploitation of those peoples.
Some more sanity and wisdom, this time from ASEAN and the Malaysians:
Asean wants no part in US-China rivalry or an unjust war over Taiwan
Peter T. C. Chang wrote:Asean supports a free world but it is not taking sides in the US-China rivalry because it could lead to an unjust and catastrophic war, misguidedly waged in the name of liberal democracy.
The US policy of “strategic ambiguity” has for decades facilitated development on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and Beijing is unlikely to seek reunification by force, unless it is provoked by Taipei’s moves towards independence.
But, from Washington’s perspective, the relative stability of the past few decades has disproportionately benefited China, eroding America’s global dominance and even possibly posing a threat to US sovereignty.
So China, the thinking goes, has to be contained before it’s too late.
While some US Republicans have expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping appears to have no sympathisers in Washington. As shown by the recent “spy balloon” incident, a feverish anti-China phobia is gripping the United States.
The groupthink on China has led to a reckless one-upmanship between the Republicans and Democrats to out-hawk each other on China. Thus, the campaign to contain China is pushing their already tense rivalry into ever more dangerous territory.
With US General Mike Minihan warning of a possible military conflict with China by 2025, talk of war is becoming more prevalent. The groundwork is being laid to prepare the American public for war with China.
According to the just war theory, war can be justified when all other options have been exhausted and there is a reasonable probability of success; in other words, the potential benefits must outweigh the harm caused.
By most accounts, war over Taiwan does not qualify as a last resort, and there would be no clear winners. Additionally, it risks escalating into a wider conflict with overwhelming costs. Given the devastation already caused by the Ukraine crisis, a war over Taiwan would have catastrophic global consequences.
This is the main reason Asean is not taking sides in the US-China rivalry: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations wants to avoid becoming complicit in a morally unjustifiable war.
Most countries in Southeast Asia are democracies, and while China presents challenges, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea, it is not seen as an existential threat. These challenges should be managed diplomatically.
Contrary to the “end of history” hypothesis, Southeast Asia’s pluralistic world view holds that liberal democracy is not the only way to achieve good governance. Just as the world is inevitably multireligious, the ideological landscape should also be diverse.
No one religion or ideology has a monopoly of virtue and few are inherently evil. The responsibility lies with both democracies and non-democracies alike to strive towards their ideals.
America’s democracy is experiencing a crisis. The rise of authoritarian sentiments, attempts to overturn election results and the spread of conspiracy theories have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the US system.
In addition, the stagnation of working-class living standards and the polarising cultural wars over issues like race, abortion and gender identity are tearing the country apart. These challenges represent a significant setback for America’s soft power and global leadership.
Thus, America is waging a two-front war to defend liberal democracy: domestically and internationally. Restoring its democracy should be Washington’s top priority, as a strong and exemplary American leadership is seen as crucial to preserving the free world.
Relentless US efforts to contain China run the risk of a catastrophic war, which is unlikely to make the world or America safer.
The most acute threat to US democracy comes from within the country. Founded on the enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality, America is fracturing along racial, ideological and religious fault lines. Christian nationalism wants to return the US to its Christian roots, while the far right and left vow to fight to the end to preserve their versions of America. Not since the civil war has the republic been at greater risk of open, armed conflict.
The fissures cutting across the US sociopolitical landscape are deeply rooted in American soil. They did not originate from China and are unlikely to disappear even if China is contained.
Sadly, the baneful American ethno-religious impulses are also felt abroad, particularly in the vilification of China. A former US state department official, in framing China’s rise as a peril, noted that it was a non-Caucasian civilisation. In the Christian nationalist grand narrative, the China threat is often placed within a world view of an epic battle between good and evil.
Another principle of the just war theory is that war must be waged for a justifiable cause. To invoke war in the name of race and religion does not constitute just cause. The US and its allies have placed themselves on a war footing, not so much to defend liberty and equality but to preserve America’s ethno-religious hegemony.
The 21st century faces a looming crisis. The world is in danger of becoming embroiled in an unjust war that would not only be catastrophic but waged on the false premises of defending liberal democratic values. Asean and other like-minded democracies must continue to make the case for peace and help pull humankind back from the brink of disaster.
bonza wrote:“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
gsco wrote:Bonza I genuinely feel sorry for you and for the overwhelming majority of Australian people for being so saturated in deep rooted fear and for not being able to step outside of the Anglosphere echo chamber and narrative control.
Hahaha. oh come on gsco - whatever you are feeling towards me - it ain't sympathy.
Those things in the article i posted either happened or didn't happen. if you say they didn't happen then show me. or you can continue with your "poor me, now its payback time sob stories. "
if you cant show me those things didn't happen then its obvious you support CCP shitfuckery within Australia. I don't.
andy-mac wrote:bonza wrote:“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
andy-mac we can do this all day - fact check each other sources and dismiss the bones based on left right biases. or you can try a bit harder and respond to the contents not the source.
I am very aware of quillettes biases. they particular have a infatuation for all things trans which is pretty tiring. yes they are conservative but they also have a lot of qualified contributors and sensible arguments.
I like to stay in touch with publications and read articles that challenge my world view. how about you?
gsco wrote:Bonza I genuinely feel sorry for you and for the overwhelming majority of Australian people for being so saturated in deep rooted fear and for not being able to step outside of the Anglosphere echo chamber and narrative control.
These are very broad and unnecessary population-level accusations. What is the evidence you have to support this claim? Can one have reservations towards the CCP while also acknowledging the failures of the West? Is that allowed in your book? You assume that everyone who speaks against the CCP is automatically brainwashed and supports the US on all fronts. That of course is ridiculous.
bonza wrote:andy-mac wrote:bonza wrote:“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
andy-mac we can do this all day - fact check each other sources and dismiss the bones based on left right biases. or you can try a bit harder and respond to the contents not the source.
I am very aware of quillettes biases. they particular have a infatuation for all things trans which is pretty tiring. yes they are conservative but they also have a lot of qualified contributors and sensible arguments.
I like to stay in touch with publications and read articles that challenge my world view. how about you?
@bonza
Agree with you that there are many opinions and people can generally back up these opinions.
Honestly, I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this whole issue as realise I have hardly any real inside knowledge on what is going on, which I think would include anyone commenting on a surf website. Definitely don't think I am on the fringe of any side.
My concern is even if what your posted article claims is true, that pouring billions of dollars into the USA's military complex for a few subs in a decades time at best and maybe a little strengthening of the alliance is the best way to defend Australia? This thought is hardly controversial.
To defend Australia against a country that I cannot see would have any reason to try and invade as they are our biggest trading partner and have contributed incredible wealth to our country, at least Gina and Twiggy anyway.
Having the subs to protest out trade routes from to ensure we can keep trading with our biggest trade partner, yep , makes sense to me.
It seems like the money could be a lot better spent elsewhere!
Andrew Robb you may remember leased the Port of Darwin to them in exchange for a pretty high paying gig post politics, I disagreed with this at the time. Chinese also own a lot of farmlands etc.
I am also not wanting to be in 100% with the USA as their track record is that that great in regard to war over the last 50 years.
Last post rushed as had to get to work.... Excuse grammar. :)
The only reason I could ever see China wanting to invade and rule Australia is for our resources and land to help their ever expanding population. I highly doubt this scenario would ever happen. If there is ever a war between China and the USA , I can’t see either successfully defeating the other . Just my thoughts.
"In doing this, China is directly going against the West's strategy of oppression and exploitation of those peoples."
I'm sure there are a few countries currently that would disagree with you on that one gsco. Oppression and exploitation are still oppression and exploitation whether by the barrel of some dictators gun or by financial shitfuckery. The US has managed to master both. Time will tell if China can do the same.
yes it's very interesting to observe China taking a more active role on the world stage, motivated in large part by a genuine belief that it can do a better job and be a better steward of the planet than the US, and in doing so step on the US's toes and directly challenge US interests across the planet, and overall challenge US hegemony.
It's equally interesting to then observe the response of the US and overall West of a global escalation of preparing to go to war with China and a global containment and rollback strategy of China.
I'd personally question the validity of a lot of the content and commentary about "wolf warrior diplomacy" and "financial and economic coercion" that we're routinely seeing disseminated as part of the West's information and propaganda campaign.
It remains to be seen if China is able to do a better job than the US and keep the interests of developing nations at heart. And I'm sure China knows that dealing with developing nations is tricky and not without its pitfalls like corruption, cronyism, changing goalposts, broken promises and contracts, etc. And China also know it's up for one hell of a battle if it wants to stand on the world stage as an equal alongside the US.
"China taking a more active role on the world stage,"
Nah, he's telling them to prepare for war, which is what you are flinging at the West.
indo-dreaming wrote:garyg1412 wrote:"for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower."
Indo that is a really simplistic example. Honestly, how many time do you reckon that is going to happen?? Compared to the issues we have with say 12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle, if you want to put it so crudely, then maybe we're protesting against the wrong things that affect women's rights hey??It was just an example, nobody can say how often it could happen, in some places it might never happen in other places it could happen daily for instance if communal showers and there are regular trans users.
If a "12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle" id expect the parents could report the man for sexual abuse of a minor and the law could even be involved, at a minimum im sure he would be given a warning or banned from the facility if a pool etc.
All kinds of similar sexual abuse issues are talked about and dealt with all the time (not suggesting this is sexual abuse but your example is), this women's safe space, trans free issue is a little different its a fairly new and evolving one and is based on a difference of opinion of ideology "what is a women"
indo reckons a trans woman, who obviously does not feel like or identify as a man, let alone is comfortable in a man's body, that's if they even still have male genitalia, is going to be in public areas blatantly letting young girls "catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower".
Brilliant.
Romney explains it nicely, I agree with him. There is a lot of homework US needs to do to stay competitive.
Supafreak wrote:The only reason I could ever see China wanting to invade and rule Australia is for our resources and land to help their ever expanding population. I highly doubt this scenario would ever happen. If there is ever a war between China and the USA , I can’t see either successfully defeating the other . Just my thoughts.
I have no idea how realistic the threat of invasion from China is, I leave the judgement of that shit up to the experts to judge, "but resources and land to help their ever expanding population" sound like a very good reason especially as we are so mineral rich, farming land rich and well placed to provide lots of renewable energy in the future, id say its all about much more than some possible threat of invasion though.
Personally with this whole issue i just see it way above our pay grade to have the intel/judgement/understanding on, i could use the opportunity to bag Albo and try to make him look bad, but personally i think these kind of deals are bigger than the PM or party in power and would happen no matter which party or PM is in power.
2027
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:The only reason I could ever see China wanting to invade and rule Australia is for our resources and land to help their ever expanding population. I highly doubt this scenario would ever happen. If there is ever a war between China and the USA , I can’t see either successfully defeating the other . Just my thoughts.
I have no idea how realistic the threat of invasion from China is, I leave the judgement of that shit up to the experts to judge, "but resources and land to help their ever expanding population" sound like a very good reason especially as we are so mineral rich, farming land rich and well placed to provide lots of renewable energy in the future, id say its all about much more than some possible threat of invasion though.
Personally with this whole issue i just see it way above our pay grade to have the intel/judgement/understanding on, i could use the opportunity to bag Albo and try to make him look bad, but personally i think these kind of deals are bigger than the PM or party in power and would happen no matter which party or PM is in power.
I think a major part of the argument is not really about the invasion of Australia. From what I have read, that by purchasing these subs they are primarily for collaborating with the USA to help patrol the South China Sea, miles away from our border. Many have argued we would be a lot better off spending this kind of money on other military and naval hardware if our main goal was to defend our borders.
The only 'up' side of this deal looking at it from a Hawkish view is that we strengthen our alliance with the USA as our protector. Did we have a choice? Dunno.
Australia does have an abundance of natural resources that China needs, but why would they invade to acquire these resources when they can buy them with trade. They own farmland, have mining interests and lease other infrastructure in Australia (Port Darwin). It would be a lot more expensive (life's and $$$$) for China to mount an invasion of Australia to obtain these resources, so really it does not make any sense.
They only factor could be if Australia did in fact stop exporting these resources to China via a trade war or something similar, and they felt they had no choice. Whether they could successfully accomplish this would be doubtful in long term in my view. The USA adventures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate it is one thing to mount an initial invasion, quite the other to occupy a hostile population.
As far as having a go at Albo, this was a deal it seems that was set up with Morrison and the Albo govt have been forced into it whether they like it or not, as mentioned earlier in this thread, once a deal signed with USA, cannot really break it. No real angle there for political bagging.
flollo that's actually a good little clip, nice one.
I'd say two things to it:
1. China genuinely believes it has good intentions and will be a positive and responsible global power, leader and steward of the planet. They believe that they have the best interests of all nations at heart, and that they have about 2,000 years of experience of being a positive global power in a multipolar world since at least the Han dynasty, which coincided with the Roman Empire. I'm not sure if it's necessary to fear the rise of China like the West currently is. Actually, I believe it should be celebrated and viewed as an opportunity.
2. Romney is basically right in saying the US doesn't have a comprehensive strategy. The US's current strategy is one of confrontation, containment and rollback of China, economic and technological damage, and outright war preparations. Kevin Rudd has been saying a similar thing in that the US currently doesn't have well developed economic, technological, political, etc, strategies to respond to China's rise (you may recall Rudd being berated for saying this a couple months ago). Rudd's idea of managed strategic competition with guardrails in his recent book is one of pushing for the global powers to compete with each other positively and in a way that advances the economic, cultural, technological, etc, progress and development of the whole planet - that benefits the planet as a whole - and that doesn't degenerate into damaging each other or the overall planet like it is currently doing, or that doesn't result in military conflict like is currently being risked.
I and many others believe the US needs to move away from its confrontation and rollback strategy towards China and seek to counter China's rise simply by focusing on improving its own backyard and economic, technological, cultural, etc, development. This is also basically what China is saying, and that the current path of military buildup, rollback and provocation that the US is on will only lead to war.
andy-mac wrote:Australia does have an abundance of natural resources that China needs, but why would they invade to acquire these resources when they can buy them with trade.
China is definitely smart with this approach. But there are complications. When a buying entity is a state-owned enterprise controlled by CCP you would naturally think about safety concerns and political interference. How would China behave if a country pushes back on such 'investors'? Would pushback even be warranted? I reckon it's contextual (personally, I don't even know) but as you know, all you need is one hardline government to stir things up dramatically.
We currently are not an enemy of China. If we join the US in a madman’s game of pretending the republic of China ( Taiwan) isn’t China and go to war over it we will become chinas enemy and in their eyes fair game.
Biden’s global weapons for sale “or else “ get rich quick scheme is the single greatest threat to the globe.
Do NOT do what nutty old men tell us to do. If America is dumb enough to follow Biden let them do it alone. The UN including Britain voted that Taiwan is China.
If they want a type of independence they will have to negotiate a good deal themselves without the guns and suicidal tendencies. The yanks need to stay home and tidy up their own backyard as it’s getting embarrassing there.
@gsco I agree with that. And let me be clear, I am not having a go at CCP because I love the US or endorse their strategy. The list of issues regarding the US is never-ending. I am one of those people who see China's dominance as an inevitability. They make an enormous amount of investments into the right areas and the US is severely lacking behind. Just look at the engineering capability of Chinese people (thank you good education system) and you will spot a huge difference to the US. If you look at this area, the only lever the US can pull to catch up is good old, trusted immigration. But then you get someone like Trump and it becomes a big issue.
But there are things that CCP needs to answer for if they want to lead the world. We are spoilt in the West, we have random individuals like friendly jordies ridiculing and exposing politicians across all sorts of issues. There is so much information (good and bad) about the US that we can analyse and judge. CCP needs to go through the same cycle of scrutiny to gain people's trust. And that's what I personally am looking for. To be honest, I don't even think about the US too much because I see it as a waste of time.
flollo wrote:andy-mac wrote:Australia does have an abundance of natural resources that China needs, but why would they invade to acquire these resources when they can buy them with trade.
China is definitely smart with this approach. But there are complications. When a buying entity is a state-owned enterprise controlled by CCP you would naturally think about safety concerns and political interference. How would China behave if a country pushes back on such 'investors'? Would pushback even be warranted? I reckon it's contextual (personally, I don't even know) but as you know, all you need is one hardline government to stir things up dramatically.
True, but that is an issue created by Australia. We were not forced to sell to CCP in the first instance.
When Robb leased out the Port of Darwin, I thought it was a stupid decision at the time. Keep important infrastructure and land Australian owned.
“ I'd personally question the validity of a lot of the content and commentary about "wolf warrior diplomacy" and "financial and economic coercion" that we're routinely seeing disseminated as part of the West's information and propaganda campaign.”
Love to hear you expand on that in the context of my question re the quillette article which succinctly summarises Hamiltons expose. And do it without playing the victim.
udo wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-23/lidia-thorpe-attempts-to-interrup...
Just wow! I don't know what's worse; these 10 or so protesters, Lidia rolling on the grass and blaming the police or media actually reporting on it all. What a sad day for the proud aboriginal flag. To see it rolled down in the dirt on this pathetic occasion...
Lidia is a shocker, Sad too that people can no longer have their say without the counter protesting all the time. The new sexual revolutionaries have made a lot of ground and the law has supported them. Time for them now to let others have their beliefs and respect as well. They themselves are becoming the very oppressors they used to despise.
She reminds me of that woman in the movie Lost In Translation that goes into Bill Murray's room and throws herself on the floor saying "lip my stocking"
What a joke....
Lidia has zero hope of effecting any change now...her whole modus operandi is to push the boundaries, scream for her audience, get her face on TV often, take maximum non taxable benefits, use Qantas and it's lounge...and generally disrupt as much as she can.
andy-mac wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:The only reason I could ever see China wanting to invade and rule Australia is for our resources and land to help their ever expanding population. I highly doubt this scenario would ever happen. If there is ever a war between China and the USA , I can’t see either successfully defeating the other . Just my thoughts.
I have no idea how realistic the threat of invasion from China is, I leave the judgement of that shit up to the experts to judge, "but resources and land to help their ever expanding population" sound like a very good reason especially as we are so mineral rich, farming land rich and well placed to provide lots of renewable energy in the future, id say its all about much more than some possible threat of invasion though.
Personally with this whole issue i just see it way above our pay grade to have the intel/judgement/understanding on, i could use the opportunity to bag Albo and try to make him look bad, but personally i think these kind of deals are bigger than the PM or party in power and would happen no matter which party or PM is in power.
I think a major part of the argument is not really about the invasion of Australia. From what I have read, that by purchasing these subs they are primarily for collaborating with the USA to help patrol the South China Sea, miles away from our border. Many have argued we would be a lot better off spending this kind of money on other military and naval hardware if our main goal was to defend our borders.
The only 'up' side of this deal looking at it from a Hawkish view is that we strengthen our alliance with the USA as our protector. Did we have a choice? Dunno.Australia does have an abundance of natural resources that China needs, but why would they invade to acquire these resources when they can buy them with trade. They own farmland, have mining interests and lease other infrastructure in Australia (Port Darwin). It would be a lot more expensive (life's and $$$$) for China to mount an invasion of Australia to obtain these resources, so really it does not make any sense.
They only factor could be if Australia did in fact stop exporting these resources to China via a trade war or something similar, and they felt they had no choice. Whether they could successfully accomplish this would be doubtful in long term in my view. The USA adventures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate it is one thing to mount an initial invasion, quite the other to occupy a hostile population.
As far as having a go at Albo, this was a deal it seems that was set up with Morrison and the Albo govt have been forced into it whether they like it or not, as mentioned earlier in this thread, once a deal signed with USA, cannot really break it. No real angle there for political bagging.
I agree with most of that.
Although its only true because we have a military and aligned with USA and because USA and many countries get involved in helping defend countries, even if its just in the way countries are helping Ukraine.
Although i dont think we have much of a choice in these matters maybe only slight compromise perhaps.
In regard to political angle, its easy to twist shit to suit any narrative these days, but yeah kinda pointless.
Ha ha now Lidia has left the Greens its like she has totally lost it, she keeps on acting like some drunk bogan chick doing crazy random shit that makes no sense, yet her last two acts cant be random they must have been planned, in this case i doubt she even knows why or what she is protesting against probably just read a media story or something.
flollo wrote:Romney explains it nicely, I agree with him. There is a lot of homework US needs to do to stay competitive.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpWFe3QI0EG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Watching that would really only really make me think that China would have not interest in a war anywhere. It would very much derail their development plans.
On a side note, I think I read here that the USA owes China that much money that it is not possible to be repaid, and only way out of debt would be a war??
Anyone can confirm this?
indo-dreaming wrote:Ha ha now Lidia has left the Greens its like she has totally lost it, she keeps on acting like some drunk bogan chick doing crazy random shit that makes no sense, yet her last two acts cant be random they must have been planned, in this case i doubt she even knows why or what she is protesting against probably just read a media story or something.
The 'lefts' own Pauline....
andy-mac wrote:flollo wrote:Romney explains it nicely, I agree with him. There is a lot of homework US needs to do to stay competitive.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpWFe3QI0EG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Watching that would really only really make me think that China would have not interest in a war anywhere. It would very much derail their development plans.
On a side note, I think I read here that the USA owes China that much money that it is not possible to be repaid, and only way out of debt would be a war??
Anyone can confirm this?
Yes, that is true although it’s quite complex. China holds ~13% of total US debt as per the below source. It’s just under a trillion USD. I don't know if you would go to war for this. Going into war with China would burn well over that amount. I guess the problem here is that everyone is waking up and asking questions about Chinese asset ownership in their countries. For years, and decades it was free for all (even you or I can buy US bonds and this is what China did and keeps doing in an open market) and now everyone says it's a problem. Like you said, port of Darwin etc. And now pulling back on those decisions and putting restrictions on Chinese ownership will automatically trigger an economic, cybersecurity war and pretty much result in sanctions being implemented by China. Not a good situation, multiple scenarios that can escalate into a serious escalation.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china...
flollo wrote:andy-mac wrote:flollo wrote:Romney explains it nicely, I agree with him. There is a lot of homework US needs to do to stay competitive.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpWFe3QI0EG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Watching that would really only really make me think that China would have not interest in a war anywhere. It would very much derail their development plans.
On a side note, I think I read here that the USA owes China that much money that it is not possible to be repaid, and only way out of debt would be a war??
Anyone can confirm this?Yes, that is true although it’s quite complex. China holds ~13% of total US debt as per the below source. It’s just under a trillion USD. I don't know if you would go to war for this. Going into war with China would burn well over that amount. I guess the problem here is that everyone is waking up and asking questions about Chinese asset ownership in their countries. For years, and decades it was free for all (even you or I can buy US bonds and this is what China did and keeps doing in an open market) and now everyone says it's a problem. Like you said, port of Darwin etc. And now pulling back on those decisions and putting restrictions on Chinese ownership will automatically trigger an economic, cybersecurity war and pretty much result in sanctions being implemented by China. Not a good situation, multiple scenarios that can escalate into a serious escalation.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china...
Thanks for reply!
Nothing is simple I guess...
Why did Australia need to pass this legislation in 2018, and why did the PRC need to protest it?
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018A00067
This is one of the most significant acts of national resilience in modern history. It will go down as a defining event in exercise of Australian sovereignty.
So, why did China protest Australia passing this law? They’re peaceful? They don’t interfere in the domestic affairs of others? So why do they care?
bonza and etarip,
bonza I think that Quillette article is well out there on the fringes of sanity and represents everything that has gone wrong with the whole situation. And this relates to etarip's last comment:
Why did Australia need to pass the legislation? Because it's a no-brainer and basic consideration for Australia to have strict and effective foreign interference laws - just like its military capability.
But what's a completely different thing altogether is the sheer amount of targeted hysterical China bashing and China-threat hyperventilation at the time (like the Quillette article) and now.
I believe this is the main thing China was "protesting" about, not the legislation itself.
This article on the Australian Parliament website is interesting and more balanced and sane: Foreign interference—neither new nor limited to China. "While its scale and scope may be increasing, foreign interference is not an entirely recent phenomenon nor limited to a single country...".
I'm sure Australia can pass legislation without all the hyperventilation and media, government and think tank attacking and abuse targeting one country - just like I'm sure Australia can update its military capability without it all (and without binding ourselves to military blocs).
But I totally understand that China-threat hyperventilation and fear porn is what gets the website clicks and sells books...
gsco. The legislation was passed 5 years ago. When relations were, on the surface, ‘good’. There wasn’t the level of public interest and media hype about it. There was little public attribution of which State’s actions were the primary driver for it. But, China still protested.
Not sure which thread to post the following. Could go in 'climate change' though the most poignant aspect isn't with CC but the underlying values and culture.
My wife is currently doing a PhD on the Illawarra transitioning from a predominantly coal mining region to, potentially, a renewable energy hub (proposed offshore wind farm, Twiggy starting green hydrogen, pumped hydro etc). She was recently down in Canberra for a bit of a gathering among federal pollies, industry, and academics, both from here and overseas.
Listening to an academic from a US Ivy League college, she, and everyone else in the audience, were taken aback when the speaker talked about how US academics working in the field are dealing with "the death threats".
In a room mostly full of Oz academics or Euro industry (who have full support of govt and people) the audience was dumbfounded. What death threats..?
Over the last few years, many US academics working in the field have had to seek protection from a wave of culture warriors who've moved beyond the court of public opinion, beyond disinformation strategies, adopting a more direct and violent resolve. Speaker explained how colleges have had to seek protection for various employees, from online security to hired muscle (carrying guns of course).
My wife's work is neither pro nor anti climate change. For example we've got a lot of friends who are coal miners who've agreed to be interviewed by her. Guess you'd describe it as understanding global trends playing out at local level.
Said US academic is also neutral and claims that position means little to 'patriots' who presume anyone studying in the field is attacking US soveriegnty. Thus consider it their duty.
Note, this isn't the social sciences or anything to do with gender or shared dunnies, it's a mix of the hard sciences and human geography. Not even theoretical, much of it is playing out in real time.
Think the anecdote fits in here as we've been talking about where the US finds itself in regard to China and the rest of the world. And while the US will lead for a while yet owing to momentum and lucrative tax breaks, stories like this make me wonder about the path it's on.
It's also worth wondering about the rising heat in our public debates - see Lidia Thrope et al - and if that will infect other spheres. What's the end game when neither side is willing to give an inch, or even to sit and listen?
udo wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/abc-news-daily/lidia-thorpe-posie-...
The whole thing is laughable - dickheads protesting against fuckwits while being gatecrashed by yet more fuckwits.
All the while, the media report breathlessly while adding no clarity to the situation.
And politicians put on their most serious face and look to legislate whatever they can.
What a joke.
Maybe if we ignore them they'll scuttle back into the wall cavities they came out of.
stunet wrote:Not sure which thread to post the following. Could go in 'climate change' though the most poignant aspect isn't with CC but the underlying values and culture.
My wife is currently doing a PhD on the Illawarra transitioning from a predominantly coal mining region to, potentially, a renewable energy hub (proposed offshore wind farm, Twiggy starting green hydrogen, pumped hydro etc). She was recently down in Canberra for a bit of a gathering among federal pollies, industry, and academics, both from here and overseas.
Listening to an academic from a US Ivy League college, she, and everyone else in the audience, were taken aback when the speaker talked about how US academics working in the field are dealing with "the death threats".
In a room mostly full of Oz academics or Euro industry (who have full support of govt and people) the audience was dumbfounded. What death threats..?
Over the last few years, many US academics working in the field have had to seek protection from a wave of culture warriors who've moved beyond the court of public opinion, beyond disinformation strategies, adopting a more direct and violent resolve. Speaker explained how colleges have had to seek protection for various employees, from online security to hired muscle (carrying guns of course).
My wife's work is neither pro nor anti climate change. For example we've got a lot of friends who are coal miners who've agreed to be interviewed by her. Guess you'd describe it as understanding global trends playing out at local level.
Said US academic is also neutral and claims that position means little to 'patriots' who presume anyone studying in the field is attacking US soveriegnty. Thus consider it their duty.
Note, this isn't the social sciences or anything to do with gender or shared dunnies, it's a mix of the hard sciences and human geography. Not even theoretical, much of it is playing out in real time.
Think the anecdote fits in here as we've been talking about where the US finds itself in regard to China and the rest of the world. And while the US will lead for a while yet owing to momentum and lucrative tax breaks, stories like this make me wonder about the path it's on.
It's also worth wondering about the rising heat in our public debates - see Lidia Thrope et al - and if that will infect other spheres. What's the end game when neither side is willing to give an inch, or even to sit and listen?
Below is pretty much a pure propaganda piece, but does have some relevant points.
USA really needs to look at itself and where it is going if it wishes to remain the main global influence. Australia, UK and the Anglosphere will no doubt to continue to support them (ala AUKUS), but for the rest of the world, Africa, Asia, South America etc, not such a great record or model.
That is horrifying that scientists can be targeted with death threats for you know, sharing the truth.
Would be interesting to have a study in how much an influence Murdoch and Fox etc had on this situation.
stunet wrote:Not sure which thread to post the following. Could go in 'climate change' though the most poignant aspect isn't with CC but the underlying values and culture.
My wife is currently doing a PhD on the Illawarra transitioning from a predominantly coal mining region to, potentially, a renewable energy hub (proposed offshore wind farm, Twiggy starting green hydrogen, pumped hydro etc). She was recently down in Canberra for a bit of a gathering among federal pollies, industry, and academics, both from here and overseas.
Listening to an academic from a US Ivy League college, she, and everyone else in the audience, were taken aback when the speaker talked about how US academics working in the field are dealing with "the death threats".
In a room mostly full of Oz academics or Euro industry (who have full support of govt and people) the audience was dumbfounded. What death threats..?
Over the last few years, many US academics working in the field have had to seek protection from a wave of culture warriors who've moved beyond the court of public opinion, beyond disinformation strategies, adopting a more direct and violent resolve. Speaker explained how colleges have had to seek protection for various employees, from online security to hired muscle (carrying guns of course).
My wife's work is neither pro nor anti climate change. For example we've got a lot of friends who are coal miners who've agreed to be interviewed by her. Guess you'd describe it as understanding global trends playing out at local level.
Said US academic is also neutral and claims that position means little to 'patriots' who presume anyone studying in the field is attacking US soveriegnty. Thus consider it their duty.
Note, this isn't the social sciences or anything to do with gender or shared dunnies, it's a mix of the hard sciences and human geography. Not even theoretical, much of it is playing out in real time.
Think the anecdote fits in here as we've been talking about where the US finds itself in regard to China and the rest of the world. And while the US will lead for a while yet owing to momentum and lucrative tax breaks, stories like this make me wonder about the path it's on.
It's also worth wondering about the rising heat in our public debates - see Lidia Thrope et al - and if that will infect other spheres. What's the end game when neither side is willing to give an inch, or even to sit and listen?
While Climate scientists have been copping this abuse for years I am not surprised to hear it has ratcheted up. The Covid effect has very much accelerated the decline in public debate, lack of trust and active hate towards leadership, academia, institutions.
etarip wrote:gsco. The legislation was passed 5 years ago. When relations were, on the surface, ‘good’. There wasn’t the level of public interest and media hype about it. There was little public attribution of which State’s actions were the primary driver for it. But, China still protested.
You could also argue that media hype is no worse than Global Times, South China Morning Post, and many other hysterical outlets representing the 'other side'. There are people whose whole existence is based on trashing the Western system and the way of life. Andrew Sheng comes to mind - https://www.scmp.com/author/andrew-sheng. Just browse his articles and you will see what I mean, all opinion pieces of why the West/US is horrible. Of course, if you only read this you will form a certain opinion. There are people like this in the west as well. And to properly analyse the situation one needs to look at the situation holistically rather than keep pushing one-sided arguments.
andy-mac wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Ha ha now Lidia has left the Greens its like she has totally lost it, she keeps on acting like some drunk bogan chick doing crazy random shit that makes no sense, yet her last two acts cant be random they must have been planned, in this case i doubt she even knows why or what she is protesting against probably just read a media story or something.
The 'lefts' own Pauline....
She has been the lefts Pauline for years now with her ranting and raving and stunts in parliament, but i think with these two latest stunts she has now surpassed Pauline (who seems to have even mellowed a little)
I dont think even Pauline would crawl on all fours dragging the Aussie flag through the mud.
I really hope this isn't Lidia's last stunt though, but i cant see how she can better this one for bad theatrics.
The crazy thing is both stunts seem planned but really poorly thought out, i dont get what she is thinking, i doubt she is gaining any new supporters but surely she would be losing some.
Maybe she wants to get arrested so she can claim to be a victim of racism or police abuse or something, or maybe its just as it seems and she is losing the plot, who knows, it is entertaining though.
Meanwhile in Australian schools....
stunet wrote:Not sure which thread to post the following. Could go in 'climate change' though the most poignant aspect isn't with CC but the underlying values and culture.
My wife is currently doing a PhD on the Illawarra transitioning from a predominantly coal mining region to, potentially, a renewable energy hub (proposed offshore wind farm, Twiggy starting green hydrogen, pumped hydro etc). She was recently down in Canberra for a bit of a gathering among federal pollies, industry, and academics, both from here and overseas.
Listening to an academic from a US Ivy League college, she, and everyone else in the audience, were taken aback when the speaker talked about how US academics working in the field are dealing with "the death threats".
In a room mostly full of Oz academics or Euro industry (who have full support of govt and people) the audience was dumbfounded. What death threats..?
Over the last few years, many US academics working in the field have had to seek protection from a wave of culture warriors who've moved beyond the court of public opinion, beyond disinformation strategies, adopting a more direct and violent resolve. Speaker explained how colleges have had to seek protection for various employees, from online security to hired muscle (carrying guns of course).
My wife's work is neither pro nor anti climate change. For example we've got a lot of friends who are coal miners who've agreed to be interviewed by her. Guess you'd describe it as understanding global trends playing out at local level.
Said US academic is also neutral and claims that position means little to 'patriots' who presume anyone studying in the field is attacking US soveriegnty. Thus consider it their duty.
Note, this isn't the social sciences or anything to do with gender or shared dunnies, it's a mix of the hard sciences and human geography. Not even theoretical, much of it is playing out in real time.
Think the anecdote fits in here as we've been talking about where the US finds itself in regard to China and the rest of the world. And while the US will lead for a while yet owing to momentum and lucrative tax breaks, stories like this make me wonder about the path it's on.
It's also worth wondering about the rising heat in our public debates - see Lidia Thrope et al - and if that will infect other spheres. What's the end game when neither side is willing to give an inch, or even to sit and listen?
Shit thats crazy.
etarip wrote:gsco. The legislation was passed 5 years ago. When relations were, on the surface, ‘good’. There wasn’t the level of public interest and media hype about it. There was little public attribution of which State’s actions were the primary driver for it. But, China still protested.
Perhaps they were still pissed about the failed extradition treaty?
Can you believe this was a proposed piece of legislation with a one party state with antidemocratic values and practices and a CCP boot licking judiciary? how did that nearly happen?https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/government-pulls-australia-china-...
@gsco Are you able to respond directly to the accusations or do you want to continue with theatrical 'the west is dumb and brainwashed' rhetoric;
some examples:
ABC four corners: e.g. political donations
CCP university interference: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/bishop-steps-up-warning-to-chines...
ASIO warnings on espionage:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-18/asio-overwhelmed-by-foreign-spyin...
https://www.afr.com/politics/asio-warned-politicians-about-taking-cash-f...
Daystayi etc:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-12/sam-dastyari-resignation-how-did-...
indo-dreaming wrote:andy-mac wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Ha ha now Lidia has left the Greens its like she has totally lost it, she keeps on acting like some drunk bogan chick doing crazy random shit that makes no sense, yet her last two acts cant be random they must have been planned, in this case i doubt she even knows why or what she is protesting against probably just read a media story or something.
The 'lefts' own Pauline....
She has been the lefts Pauline for years now with her ranting and raving and stunts in parliament, but i think with these two latest stunts she has now surpassed Pauline (who seems to have even mellowed a little)
I dont think even Pauline would crawl on all fours dragging the Aussie flag through the mud.
I really hope this isn't Lidia's last stunt though, but i cant see how she can better this one for bad theatrics.
The crazy thing is both stunts seem planned but really poorly thought out, i dont get what she is thinking, i doubt she is gaining any new supporters but surely she would be losing some.
Maybe she wants to get arrested so she can claim to be a victim of racism or police abuse or something, or maybe its just as it seems and she is losing the plot, who knows, it is entertaining though.
Stunt alright! Media carrying on about her being thrown to the ground. Linda Burney calling for investigation.
She took a dive.
The west is dumb. No doubt ;)
When you try conquer the world through ‘do as I say and not as I do’ politics and pretend there is a rule based order, but break all the rules then try call others out on not adhering to the same imaginary principles - failure is inevitable.
The arrogance of the existing western powers and their warmongering feats are an indisputable truth. The historical evidence of the last three decades especially shows that the most violent and illegal incursions / invasions of sovereign lands have been perpetuated by the west.
But yeah - let’s cry foul about ‘foreign interference’ ;)
Let’s try call out others and put a spotlight on what they are supposedly doing to us.
‘Anti democratic values’ or straight out being beaten at our own game ? ;);)
Short memory…
https://m.
ergo "Two wrongs really do make a right".
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.