Australia - you're standing in it
Parts of Pilbara expected to nudge 50 degrees on weekend (foick that):
https://www.9news.com.au/wild-weather/temperatures-set-to-soar-above-50-...
Sensationalism, or a real chance? I know the old weatherzone forums would be cheering every 0.1 increment on the way up to a record. Record is 50.5 at Mardie in 1998 apparently.
Should asterisk the "not a great journalist" line. His research is top notch and appears to pass all the legal and ethical requirements, it's the colourful delivery that detracts.
The same work in the hands of someone like Kate McClymont would be devastating.
stunet wrote:He's not a great journalist, but what FJ does is highlight the gaps in our public life where crooks like Barilaro et al set up shop, afforded protection by institutions like parliament, divisions of the police, and even the media.
His smarmy schtick drives me the wrong way, but at shining a light on corruption and malfeasance he's utterly brilliant.
It's great to see him back and I hope like hell the authorities act on some of his work.
I understand how some can get rubbed up the wrong way with his delivery style, I'm an old prick, but I at times I find him quite funny and gives some of the topics he is covering a bit of humour, could be too dry otherwise for his target audience. When he sits down and does a proper interview such as with KRudd or Michael West, he comes across as very intelligent and extremely well read.
At the end of the day his humour is being aimed at a young demographic and not for people in their 50's or older, if he is getting some of the younger generation to question things then he is doing a good job in my book.
Imagine if there was a proper media organisation with all the accompanying resources covering the stories he has, it would be a game changer. Anyway hope he keeps chipping away at these stories until they can no longer be ignored. Come on 4 Corners, follow one of them up!!
I thought maybe Avi would make the list of suspects, Shanks made little Avi look pretty stupid on more than one occasion. I’ve always thought Shanks was playing with fire and he’s definitely courageous in what he exposes . I can’t watch all his vids but some are definitely worth a look, he’s different.
Shanks’ reporting has grown on me. I watched that last ‘recap’ video in full, and it does make me laugh that many of Barilaro’s current troubles might actually be a result of his thin-skinned response to the original FJs videos.
Barilaro and his ilk make my skin crawl. Self-serving, system-gaming, low-life crooks masquerading as members of parliament. I wouldn’t be surprised if ICACs investigation of the LNP of recent years turns out to be as damaging as MacDonald / Obeid et al was for the Labor brand.
VJ - spot on in calling out the hyperbole in the defence posture articles above. So many factual errors about capability, posture, etc dressed up in quasi-official language.
It’s interesting; the current shift in Australia’s defence force structure is exactly what some experts have been calling for since the 80s - more focus on maritime and air defence of our northern approaches, capacity to generate sustained presence in the choke points out of the Indonesian archipelago and PNG, supplemented now with land-based anti-ship and anti-air missiles. Less focus on expeditionary land capabilities designed to operate in the Middle East.
Will be interesting to see what the DSR report actually says. Maintenance of sovereign capability will be an important element. Part of the challenge is that we’ve undermined our industrial base so much that we’re a long way behind on this. Attempts to reduce dependency on US equipment have, in many cases, led to acquisition of European platforms that have failed (at enormous cost) such as the MRH90 and Tiger helicopters.
So if we can’t build them here, and we don’t have faith in European suppliers, what else do we do?
etarip wrote:VJ - spot on in calling out the hyperbole in the defence posture articles above. So many factual errors about capability, posture, etc dressed up in quasi-official language.
It’s interesting; the current shift in Australia’s defence force structure is exactly what some experts have been calling for since the 80s - more focus on maritime and air defence of our northern approaches, capacity to generate sustained presence in the choke points out of the Indonesian archipelago and PNG, supplemented now with land-based anti-ship and anti-air missiles. Less focus on expeditionary land capabilities designed to operate in the Middle East.
Will be interesting to see what the DSR report actually says. Maintenance of sovereign capability will be an important element. Part of the challenge is that we’ve undermined our industrial base so much that we’re a long way behind on this. Attempts to reduce dependency on US equipment have, in many cases, led to acquisition of European platforms that have failed (at enormous cost) such as the MRH90 and Tiger helicopters.
So if we can’t build them here, and we don’t have faith in European suppliers, what else do we do?
I would have thought one of our main defence priorities would be getting our emergency fuel reserve based in Australia, rather than USA and even develop the capability to produce our own rather than relying on imports. Can have all the best machinery and weaponry available, but I would think this would be of little use if our borders were closed off and we could not import any fuel to operate these machines whether aircraft, tanks or trucks etc.....
Totally agree a-m. It’s a balance though. Fixed storage sites are vulnerable as well.
I think there is a degree of comfort that supply could be maintained by shifting the routes further south. Maritime blockades are VERY hard to achieve.
So, a mix between domestic capacity for production, increase reserves and a ability to ensure supply. Seems easy enough…
etarip wrote:Totally agree a-m. It’s a balance though. Fixed storage sites are vulnerable as well.
I think there is a degree of comfort that supply could be maintained by shifting the routes further south. Maritime blockades are VERY hard to achieve.
So, a mix between domestic capacity for production, increase reserves and a ability to ensure supply. Seems easy enough…
Yep, hope it never comes to that, but just for general sovereignty, I think we should have our emergency reserved stored somewhere where they could be used for an emergency, natural or man made. :)
Yes Andy M, it's mind numbingly brainless that we don't have more storage at home. (Or a car industry that can be re-tooled if needed). That line of defence US West Coast - Pearl - Solomons/Fiji - Brisbane was sorely tested in last conflict. I would think Chinese war planners would be wanting to disrupt it as much as possible in event of conflict - hell, I would if in their position. Hence Solomons diplomacy etc. These days it's if you can get missile facilities in place with the range, and not just air bases.
So I'll do a picture show to show how important it was last time, because ship nerd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)
Choose CV2, Scroll down for battle pic - it won't post up as a direct link. It shows the USS Lexington fighting and dying to save Australia and this line of supply, Battle of Coral Sea 8 May 1942
https://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=18486
Here's USS Saratoga and HMS Victorious holding the line, New Caledonia 1943. The Brits sent Victorious to help keep the supply lines to Australia open, even though they could hardly spare her, because every other US fleet carrier had been sunk or put out of action at this stage, and the large numbers of US 'Essex' class had yet to arrive on scene. Bet you didn't know that. I expect the Brits would help again if the chips were down and it came to it.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/531fdb48e4b0e8fbe6259952/1...
Happier days. Lexington and Saratoga prewar on Oahu's south shore, with Diamond Head and the breaks of Waikiki in the background.
Cheers etarip, it's only an interest in ships and the sea that has seen me read up on strategy. I see it geopolitically ie who has influence/power/can project power, where. Power abhors a vaccuum. Mahan was right.
gsco, my point is that the threat environment is getting more precarious, so Defence seems to be upping to meet the threat. Retired diplomats saying stuff is all well and good, but any country would be responding to increased threats from powers in their region if they could, this is on the historic record time and time again. Eg Neville Chamberlain gets a bad wrap, but it was on his watch that much of Britain's WW2 rearmament began, once he realised the threat Nazi Germany really was.
And so, next post, what is that threat to us today? The Chinese have built something really quite extraordinary, hats off to them, it's a magnificent achievement - but it has implications for us.
And so what have they built? "The Modernisation of the Chinese Navy: The Rise of a Great Naval Power"
When planning a response, I would argue look at the capability, and respond to that, rather than the politics or what is said.
It's a no-brainer for a country to have a solid, sovereign, independent military capability.
But, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I think that China is only a military threat to Australia if we keep going down the path of:
- backing and indeed spearheading the US's aggression and provocation of China,
- turning Australia into a US military base with all guns pointed towards China and whose specific purpose is to enable the US to launch a military offensive at China,
- continuing to support and back the US's economic and trade war and sanctions against China,
- continuing to support and back the US's technological undermining and strangling of China,
- and overall continuing to back and support, and indeed spearhead, the US's not just containment strategy of China but now strategy of political, economic, technological etc rollback, etc.
I genuinely believe that if we behave as an actual sober adult - an independent, sovereign and respectful country focused in positive, respectful and mutually beneficial win-win bilateral political, technological, economic, trade, cultural and diplomatic etc relations with China - then China will not be a threat to us.
In fact, China is - it still is - a huge opportunity for Australia.
When it comes to China, the biggest thread to our sovereignty and military wellbeing and safety is our relationship to the US.
gsco wrote:It's a no-brainer for a country to have a solid, sovereign, independent military capability.
But, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I think that China is only a military threat to Australia if we keep going down the path of:
- backing and indeed spearheading the US's aggression and provocation of China,
- turning Australia into a US military base with all guns pointed towards China and whose specific purpose is to enable the US to launch a military offensive at China,
- continuing to support and back the US's economic and trade war and sanctions against China,
- continuing to support and back the US's technological undermining and strangling of China,
- and overall continuing to back and support, and indeed spearhead, the US's not just containment strategy of China but now strategy of political, economic, technological etc rollback, etc.I genuinely believe that if we behave as an actual sober adult - an independent, sovereign and respectful country focused in positive, respectful and mutually beneficial win-win bilateral political, technological, economic, trade, cultural and diplomatic etc relations with China - then China will not be a threat to us.
In fact, China is - it still is - a huge opportunity for Australia.
When it comes to China, the biggest thread to our sovereignty and military wellbeing and safety is our relationship to the US.
Yep, my thoughts also.
Why would China want to have a conflict with Australia when trade etc is mutually beneficial?
Scares me how we seem to be following the USA down this path, at the moment their society is hardly one you'd wish to look up to.
andy-mac wrote:gsco wrote:It's a no-brainer for a country to have a solid, sovereign, independent military capability.
But, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I think that China is only a military threat to Australia if we keep going down the path of:
…
- continuing to support and back the US's economic and trade war and sanctions against China,
- continuing to support and back the US's technological undermining and strangling of China,
- and overall continuing to back and support, and indeed spearhead, the US's not just containment strategy of China but now strategy of political, economic, technological etc rollback, etc.I genuinely believe that if we behave as an actual sober adult - an independent, sovereign and respectful country focused in positive, respectful and mutually beneficial win-win bilateral political, technological, economic, trade, cultural and diplomatic etc relations with China - then China will not be a threat to us.
In fact, China is - it still is - a huge opportunity for Australia.
.Yep, my thoughts also.
Why would China want to have a conflict with Australia when trade etc is mutually beneficial?
Gents, appreciate the tone of this discussion!
I think this article sums up how the US (and, increasingly the EU and others) are seeing the benefits and risks of trade with China based on the experience of trade practises.
https://tnsr.org/2022/12/chinas-brute-force-economics-waking-up-from-the...
It’s a long article, but very sobering. we’re not operating on a level playing field at all. The sentiments above might be worth reconsidering with this in mind.
It’s a curious dilemma, and one that Australia is relatively exposed to.
Trade = win/win as long as both sides are playing the same game. Do we really think that a diplomatically and militarily isolated Australia will be able to dictate favourable trade terms with a regionally dominant China, who have expressed an intent to break down the existing order, demonstrated consistent non-compliance with WTO norms, and already exerted economic coercion against Australia?
This isn’t to say that our current frameworks shouldn’t be questioned critically, but it does invite whether our optimism re China is, and has been, misplaced.
etarip wrote:andy-mac wrote:gsco wrote:It's a no-brainer for a country to have a solid, sovereign, independent military capability.
But, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I think that China is only a military threat to Australia if we keep going down the path of:
…
- continuing to support and back the US's economic and trade war and sanctions against China,
- continuing to support and back the US's technological undermining and strangling of China,
- and overall continuing to back and support, and indeed spearhead, the US's not just containment strategy of China but now strategy of political, economic, technological etc rollback, etc.I genuinely believe that if we behave as an actual sober adult - an independent, sovereign and respectful country focused in positive, respectful and mutually beneficial win-win bilateral political, technological, economic, trade, cultural and diplomatic etc relations with China - then China will not be a threat to us.
In fact, China is - it still is - a huge opportunity for Australia.
.Yep, my thoughts also.
Why would China want to have a conflict with Australia when trade etc is mutually beneficial?Gents, appreciate the tone of this discussion!
I think this article sums up how the US (and, increasingly the EU and others) are seeing the benefits and risks of trade with China based on the experience of trade practises.
https://tnsr.org/2022/12/chinas-brute-force-economics-waking-up-from-the...
It’s a long article, but very sobering. we’re not operating on a level playing field at all. The sentiments above might be worth reconsidering with this in mind.
It’s a curious dilemma, and one that Australia is relatively exposed to.
Trade = win/win as long as both sides are playing the same game. Do we really think that a diplomatically and militarily isolated Australia will be able to dictate favourable trade terms with a regionally dominant China, who have expressed an intent to break down the existing order, demonstrated consistent non-compliance with WTO norms, and already exerted economic coercion against Australia?
This isn’t to say that our current frameworks shouldn’t be questioned critically, but it does invite whether our optimism re China is, and has been, misplaced.
Cheers for posting. I guess a lot of what is written is correct. However, while reading it I just had the feeling that it's a bit of the case that the USA and its corporations now have some serious competition for dominance on the world stage and are not prepared to let it go. A lot of the trade deals mentioned in my understanding generally favour the USA over the other member country's. I don't think the USA has really ever acted purely altruistically, but always for its own national interest, as any country should.
Anyway hope the power that be work out their differences!
Fundamentally, we’re in an era of systemic competition. It’s not just the US. It’s everyone who stands to lose from a change in the current system.
The premise of the link above is that we’re being beaten at trade by a competitor that is playing to a different rule book. The article is written by, and for, US commentators but it does address ‘allies and partners’. I’m going to look for any similar articles from non-US sources too.
Despite what people think, I don’t believe that the US wants to go to war. China is essential to the US economy, and more than that, to its culture of convenience. There’s a solid understanding that war with China doesn’t end well. For anyone.
Taiwan is more than ‘Taiwan’ for the US. It is a test of its credibility and its alliance systems. Same as Ukraine. The Pax Americana is built on alliances as much as it is built on military might.
If people are cheering for a shift in the global order in favour of China, or at least against the US, then we need to be clear-eyed that odds are (and history tells us) that this isn’t going to happen peacefully.
etarip wrote:Fundamentally, we’re in an era of systemic competition. It’s not just the US. It’s everyone who stands to lose from a change in the current system.
The premise of the link above is that we’re being beaten at trade by a competitor that is playing to a different rule book. The article is written by, and for, US commentators but it does address ‘allies and partners’. I’m going to look for any similar articles from non-US sources too.
Despite what people think, I don’t believe that the US wants to go to war. China is essential to the US economy, and more than that, to its culture of convenience. There’s a solid understanding that war with China doesn’t end well. For anyone.
Taiwan is more than ‘Taiwan’ for the US. It is a test of its credibility and its alliance systems. Same as Ukraine. The Pax Americana is built on alliances as much as it is built on military might.
If people are cheering for a shift in the global order in favour of China, or at least against the US, then we need to be clear-eyed that odds are (and history tells us) that this isn’t going to happen peacefully.
My last post was pretty rushed.
I don't think the USA wants a war with China, but definitely does not feel comfortable being challenged as the dominant global economic or military power, which is what China is doing. I don't think China will back down in its rise either, as they have a pretty good memory of how they have historically been treated by the west. Hope both powers can accommodate the other in a peaceful negotiated way, as the alternative is too horrifying to contemplate, no winners there.
Personally I am not hoping for new world order, but think some areas may have to be renegotiated as the days of the USA dictating what happens may be over.
Saying that, I probably don't know even the tip of it, and just want to live a peaceful simple life...
Twiggy sure does get around . https://theaimn.com/twiggys-afghan-mineral-coup/
Etarip wrote:
"Taiwan is more than ‘Taiwan’ for the US. It is a test of its credibility and its alliance systems. Same as Ukraine."
What sort of "test" do you envisage?
A Ukraine style test?
Not sure that is working out well for anyone or for US credibility.
Speaking of credibility, who would pay this buffoon for his thoughts ? That’s assuming that they’re his thoughts
I'm sure he was paid for his speech. It makes you wonder about the credibility of the organization running the conference. Why would you pay an incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, self-proclaimed megalomaniacal loser to speak at a conference?
— Richard Wright (@RichardKGrump) February 17, 2023
By the way, Etarip, the brute force economics article is a pretty accurate outline of China's game plan - ironically facilitated for many years by Wall St for short term $$$s and even by the current sniffer in chief and his son probably for similar reasons.
I am not sure rhe US political class which includes top level military (who are by necessity deeply political to reach the top) can be trusted as competent to steer us through dangerous waters ahead.
frog wrote:By the way, Etarip, the brute force economics article is a pretty accurate outline of China's game plan - ironically facilitated for many years by Wall St for short term $$$s and even by the current sniffer in chief and his son probably for similar reasons.
I am not sure rhe US political class which includes top level military (who are by necessity deeply political to reach the top) can be trusted as competent to steer us through dangerous waters ahead.
totally!
many pointing out it is wall st. (and co.) that largely got us into this mess
with corona, there was a moment of forced 'decoupling'... however as soon as there was a sniff of china opening up, it was all back in...
(with major investments from the likes of apple through the whole process)
...and the rhetoric of china china china (good good good) has been the order from the true masters for months now...
these cunts cannot help themselves
and most certainly not the normies ie. us
Nah decoupling will continue with the important stuff like the semiconductors: too much policy is now in place (by Dems continuing Trump's start) to not see that happen. Friendshoring too. The West is beginning to police the theft of IP too.
That Scomo link, I went "omg he will be our Churchill," assuming a 1930s allegory. You will recall Churchill spent much time in the wilderness being a lone voice alerting the danger.
It's more like Thucydides Trap
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11765787/AFL-star-Nathan-B...
*wince*
And we reckon surfing's dangerous...
Who can forget Buck Shelford
Absolute gold and very interesting considering where it's coming from: the Cato Institute.
Spells out the US's foreign policy perfectly and why as frog said they cannot be trusted.
Australia should be hedging its bets in the currently changing geopolitical power dynamic by decoupling from the US and establishing military neutrality.
Cato Institute wrote:The world is a mess, but Washington is determined to fix it. The secretary of state flies around the globe issuing instructions to friends and foes alike. When foreign officials refuse to listen, Uncle Sam dons his mailed fist.
First come sanctions to back his commands. Washington’s ability and willingness to conduct economic warfare is nonpareil. The U.S. and its allies understandably fret over Chinese economic coercion, such as trade restrictions, bans on tourism, and restrictions of investment. However, the Treasury Department issues new economic sanctions almost daily. Thousands of governments, businesses, officials, and others are presently on its naughty list.
With nary a thought, let alone serious debate, Congress also penalizes other nations—friends as well as foes—that flout its will. Worst is imposing economic sanctions on already impoverished populations in an attempt to oust or influence their governments. Americans pay for such controls, which greatly complicate international investment, trade, and services, but foreign peoples suffer far more.
Sanctions are notable for both their harm and their ineffectiveness, as seen in Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. When the U.S. targets the entire economy, the resulting hardship is widespread and sometimes deadly. American officials know the harm caused to innocents, but simply don’t care. For instance, when confronted with the mass death of Iraqi children from sanctions, Madeleine Albright’s infamous response was: “We think the price is worth it.”
Alas, little practical has been achieved at such high human cost. Although U.S. sanctions ultimately might weaken target regimes, Washington has failed to enforce its will against any of its adversaries. Despite years, even decades, of sanctions, Cuba remains communist and Venezuela remains authoritarian. North Korea has not abandoned its nuclear weapons, Syria has not ousted Bashar al‐Assad, and Iran has not abandoned its nuclear activities. Washington also has tried targeted sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, but they have even less impact on hostile governments.
Sanctions have, however, uniformly intensified antagonism toward America. Targeted states have sought assistance elsewhere, especially turning to Russia and China. Washington’s “hostile policy” has become another justification for North Korea’s nuclear program.
Ongoing sanctions against Afghanistan and Russia are likely to fail in much the same way. A year on and the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan is growing more radical as its people suffer ever more from economic collapse. Moscow is escalating its military campaign against Ukraine. Although the Russian economy will suffer further, especially in high‐tech fields, Moscow will remain able to deploy a substantial military. The regime may end up looking a bit like a large North Korea: poor and isolated, but doubly belligerent.
Washington’s second tool of intervention is military action. Resist America and Washington is ever ready to bomb, invade, and occupy your nation! The cost of this policy is enormous, starting with the Pentagon budget. Last month, the lame duck Congress approved a record $858 billion in “defense” (really offense) outlays. The so‐called global war on terror alone will ultimately cost, including care for wounded and disabled service personnel, about $8 trillion. That accounts for roughly a third of the current publicly held national debt.
Even more tragic are the lives lost and maimed. A conservative estimate of the total dead in America’s wars over the last two decades is about one million. However, by some measures, the number of Iraqis killed in the aftermath of Washington’s invasion alone approaches that number. U.S. deaths, service personnel and contractors, have been in the thousands. Official statistics undercount injuries, which are in the tens of thousands. Better medical care has saved many who would have died in previous contacts, but rampant suicide has increased the death toll, adding more than four times the number of those killed in action, and thousands live with severe injuries and PTSD.
Nor are Americans the only ones to suffer. Allied troops, especially local forces, have suffered tens of thousands of deaths. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Tens of thousands in Afghanistan. Thousands or tens of thousands – the estimates vary widely – have died in Libya. Large numbers have been injured and millions displaced in these conflicts.
Admittedly, Washington has not directly caused most of the harm, though U.S. airstrikes killed more civilians than successive administrations admitted. Rather, America’s specialty has been to wreck governments and divide countries, inviting and sustaining brutal conflict and mass killing. Washington also has underwritten other combatants, such as Saudi Arabia, which continue to commit murder and mayhem even as prospects for success disappear. None of America’s recent wars have yet delivered the promised peace, stability, prosperity, and democracy.
Washington has perfected drone warfare, too, visiting death upon innocent and guilty alike in faraway lands. Although this practice is more restrained than full‐scale invasions, the very convenience of death by drone makes this tool too easy to use. Although an effective weapon, drones have been used carelessly and promiscuously, with murderous effect. The spectacle of Obama officials sitting in comfort debating who to kill highlighted the corrupting effect of power.
Worst are “signature” killings based on behaviors seen rather than actions observed. An example of the sort of appalling mistakes that inevitably result is the Kabul strike during America’s Afghan exit, which killed an aid worker and several children. Unfortunately, deadly drone attacks animate retaliation from terrorists, including American citizens. To its credit, the Biden administration has tightened rules governing use of drones.
Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been by far the world’s most dangerous nation. Although Russia is now a contender for that title after last year’s invasion of Ukraine, America has attacked more countries, created more chaos, and caused more civilian casualties than has Moscow even now. For China, one would have to go back a half century to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to find its government causing comparable human harm, and that was to its own population.
America remains the world’s most powerful nation, with the largest economy, greatest cultural influence, and deadliest military. Yet Washington’s foreign policy has failed badly, and most dramatically when the U.S. has intervened most forcefully, with economic sanctions or military forces. The failure of America’s grandiose attempts at international social engineering were tragically illustrated by the spectacle of people falling off planes leaving Kabul airport.
In broadest terms, the U.S. won the Cold War by constraining Moscow through credible threats rather than offensive action. One major conflict, the Korean War, ended in a rough draw, while preserving South Korea’s independence. With the exception of a couple quick in‐and‐out invasions, such as Grenada and Panama, Washington’s other armed interventions were mostly tragic disasters, particularly Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Even those that resulted in few U.S. casualties, such as America’s Balkan attacks, failed to eliminate ethnic division and deliver liberal democracy. None defended serious, let alone vital, U.S. interests. Economic warfare has turned out no better, with Washington mostly impoverishing local populations while engaging in hypocritical virtue‐signaling.
It is shocking that members of the blob, which former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes called the foreign policy establishment, have been so consistently incompetent while suffering few professional consequences. This lack of accountability is scandalous. However, Washington elites have never hesitated to callously rationalize sometimes prodigious foreign casualties.
For instance, Albright arrogantly insisted that the U.S. look further into the future than other nations, justifying America’s consistently aggressive and militaristic policies. Her opinion is widely shared in Washington despite being obvious nonsense, given the multiple catastrophes caused by U.S. interventions over the last couple decades. Who other than a revolving door Washington apparatchik would judge America’s efforts to be farsighted and successful?
Nevertheless, as noted earlier, Albright dismissed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children with the quip: “We think the price is worth it.” No doubt George W. Bush in Iraq, Barack Obama in Afghanistan, and Donald Trump in Yemen thought similarly. Yet imagine how Americans would respond if a foreign official—Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, for example—made a similar claim. What if the Russian president explained that the civilian toll in the Ukraine conflict was unfortunate, but necessary. After all, his nation exhibited unique foresight and the price of its actions was “worth it.”
It is easy to justify any cost, no matter how high, if someone else is paying. U.S. foreign policy today is not just foolish and counterproductive. It also is deeply immoral. Washington has turned people into a means for Uncle Sam’s ends, leaving them to pay what often has been the ultimate price.
The next administration should relearn such foreign policy virtues as humility, compassion, restraint, empathy, pragmatism, and realism. The world is not a global chess game in which American policymakers are entitled to wreak havoc while sacrificing U.S. military personnel and foreign civilians alike as so many gambit pawns.
The real reason Australia's rental crisis is out of control:
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/real-reason-a...
Not any positive outcome here ..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-20/what-would-war-with-china-look-li...
velocityjohnno wrote:The real reason Australia's rental crisis is out of control:
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/real-reason-a...
God i wish Blowin could post right now this is right up his alley and a lot of what he has been saying for years.
Anywhere here is the article, cause should be read.
"It is hard to go anywhere without hearing about Australia’s rental crisis.
And for good reason, with rents soaring at record double-digit rates across much of Australia on the back of record tight rental vacancies.
Australia’s rental market initially tightened over the pandemic due to a desire for more space, the growing trend to working from home and the need for home offices.
This saw the number of people per dwelling fall sharply, in turn lifting rental demand despite temporarily slow population growth.
More recently, immigration has soared, which has added massively to rental demand and tightened the rental market further.
Shortly after coming to office, the Albanese Government announced a range of measures to accelerate Australia’s immigration intake, including:
• increasing the permanent migrant intake by 35,000 to 195,000
• increasing the duration of post-study work visas for international students by two years in areas of skills shortages
-ADVERTISEMENT-
• allowing international students to work unlimited hours while studying, effectively turning student visas into unrestricted work visas
• allocating $36 million dollars and 500 extra staff to clear visa backlogs, thereby accelerating international arrivals.
These reforms pushed temporary visa arrivals to record levels in the latter part of 2022, driven by international students seeking work and permanent residency.
This week, it was revealed that a record 360,000 visa applications were lodged overseas by students last year, with the Federal Government also processing a record number of applications since the middle of 2022.
Australia’s rental shortage will be further inflamed by the Chinese Government’s directive that it will no longer recognise foreign academic degrees and diplomas if the study was conducted online.
This decision is expected to see 40,000 to 50,000 Chinese students land in Australia over the next few months, equating to roughly one-third of available rentals in both Sydney and Melbourne.
The upshot is that Australia’s immigration intake will be the largest on record in 2023 by a very wide margin, which will turn the rental crisis into a catastrophe.
Where are the hundreds of thousands of new migrants arriving supposed to live when there is already a dire shortage of homes for the existing population? On the streets?
A ‘Big Australia’ means a permanent rental shortage
The Federal Government dramatically lifted Australia’s immigration intake in the early 2000s.
Australia’s net overseas migration jumped from an average of 90,500 between 1991 and 2004 to an average of 219,000 between 2005 and 2019 – representing an annual average increase in immigration of 140 per cent.
Australia’s turbocharged immigration is also the primary driver of Australia’s chronic shortage of social housing.
According to the UNSW City Futures Research Centre, Australia’s social housing stock grew by only 9 per cent in the 14 years to 2020 against extreme immigration-driven population growth of 25 per cent.
The fact remains that so long as the Federal Government runs a ‘Big Australia’ immigration policy, the nation will forever suffer from housing (rental) shortages.
The Intergenerational Report projected that Australia’s population will grow by 13.1 million people (50 per cent) in only 40 years on the back of net overseas migration of 235,000 a year.
That population increase is the equivalent of adding a combined Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to Australia’s current population in only 40 years.
The entire housing (rental) crisis is self-inflicted by extreme levels of immigration. Yet moderating immigration back to long-run historical levels of around 100,000 people a year is never even considered.
Instead, governments continue to spruik increasing supply, such as the Albanese Government’s Housing Future Fund (HFF), which aims to build an additional 30,000 social homes over its first five years.
That’s 30,000 new homes against a projected immigration increase of 1,175,000 people over the same five-year period.
In other words, the HFF is a drop in the bucket of what is needed and will inevitably result in a worsening social housing shortage.
Ultimately, high population growth (immigration) is a direct policy choice, and one that most Australians do not support.
If policy makers genuinely want to fix Australia’s housing crisis, they must start by moderating population growth so that demand better matches supply.
More Coverage
Crackdown on ‘unfair’ rental practice
‘Hell’: Picture sums up sad Australian crisis
Otherwise, Australia’s rental crisis will become a permanent feature of Australia."
"• increasing the permanent migrant intake by 35,000 to 195,000
• increasing the duration of post-study work visas for international students by two years in areas of skills shortages
• allowing international students to work unlimited hours while studying, effectively turning student visas into unrestricted work visas
• allocating $36 million dollars and 500 extra staff to clear visa backlogs, thereby accelerating international arrivals."
soooo...
195 000 permanent migrants...
+ literally 100s of thousands of students with no work restrictions... ongoing...
could literally equate to 400 - 500 thousand migrants, every year, over the coming years... ongoing...
especially once word gets out a student can earn super good coin for the measely (bogus) investment in a TAFE or english course... as was already the case, and widely practiced...
good one labor, solving the housing crisis, looking after the little guy, addressing the cost of living crisis, (and albo's negative geared properties)
just as promised...
to quote guysniley... from a while back of course... "lazy economics"
to the absolute extreme
Good on Albo's government for allocating extra resources to clear backlogs of visas application.
flollo wrote:Good on Albo's government for allocating extra resources to clear backlogs of visas application.
How great is Albo! I mean stand him alongside GrubHoward, OnionAbbott, and "I AM the Gubbment" Morrison he just shines like a star!! Just a down to earth say it how it is all round nice guy.
I am positively surprised by Albo. To be honest, I don't really follow politics or daily news so I'm not up to date. And I'm not on Twitter. But I am noticing how Albo is a lot calmer and not hysterical like his predecessors. It's good.
And on this migration thing, no point in having visa applicants waiting on an outcome for many months, years...They need ongoing support and timely resolution, positive or negative.
Sure, maybe Albo and co are too lenient in the student visa segment to keep the education lobby happy. But overall, a lot of people want to come here (and quite a few leave) and there needs to be a robust system to deal with all the applications. And at the end of the day, people here want to solve global challenges. And you need global talent to solve global challenges. I learned that lesson well while working for a global US organisation.
Australia has become like a big swimming pool, …every year the politicians chuck another few hundred thousand into the housing pool and watch to see who sinks and to see who swims.
Fark this guy has balls! Pissing off every one with power in Australia. This vid truly sickening....
https://m.
gsco wrote:Absolute gold and very interesting considering where it's coming from: the Cato Institute.
Spells out the US's foreign policy perfectly and why as frog said they cannot be trusted.
Australia should be hedging its bets in the currently changing geopolitical power dynamic by decoupling from the US and establishing military neutrality.
Cato Institute wrote:The world is a mess, but Washington is determined to fix it. The secretary of state flies around the globe issuing instructions to friends and foes alike. When foreign officials refuse to listen, Uncle Sam dons his mailed fist.
First come sanctions to back his commands. Washington’s ability and willingness to conduct economic warfare is nonpareil. The U.S. and its allies understandably fret over Chinese economic coercion, such as trade restrictions, bans on tourism, and restrictions of investment. However, the Treasury Department issues new economic sanctions almost daily. Thousands of governments, businesses, officials, and others are presently on its naughty list.
With nary a thought, let alone serious debate, Congress also penalizes other nations—friends as well as foes—that flout its will. Worst is imposing economic sanctions on already impoverished populations in an attempt to oust or influence their governments. Americans pay for such controls, which greatly complicate international investment, trade, and services, but foreign peoples suffer far more.
Sanctions are notable for both their harm and their ineffectiveness, as seen in Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. When the U.S. targets the entire economy, the resulting hardship is widespread and sometimes deadly. American officials know the harm caused to innocents, but simply don’t care.
…
Interesting article gsco.
Could have been written any time over the last 50 years, just change a few country names, some dollar figures etc.
Actually, it was written many times over the last 50 years. Their policy and stance hasn’t changed. Once they got away with overthrowing the democratically elected government of Allende and installing a mass murdeing puppet of Pinochet then all bets were off. They could get away with anything. And they did.
Glad you’ve caught up.
And Cato was Inspector Clouseau’s sidekick.
andy-mac wrote:Fark this guy has balls! Pissing off every one with power in Australia. This vid truly sickening....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_NCPkoUekHQ
That was sickening alright I’d be interested to read etarip thoughts on this .
Just watched it. That kind of self-aggrandizing ‘warstory’ shit makes my blood boil. Complete lack of empathy for the people of Afghanistan. It’s complete bullshit that those podcasts are done as a ‘public service’ to veterans. It normalizes deviant behaviour. That ScoJo comes across as a complete flog.
As far as the investigations are concerned, I’m at a loss as to why the Brereton Report was handled the way it was. There’s a whole story in that but it’s been missed by most commentators.
Normally, in the military, if you’re undertaking an inquiry / fact find investigation into an incident and you identify that it is likely that an offence (civil or military) has been committed you are supposed to cease that part of the investigation and call in the military or civilian police (as appropriate).
Most of the ‘evidence’ in the Brereton enquiry was obtained under compellence. (Which means interviewees HAVE to answer questions, under threat of military prosecution if they’re still in the military). Which means it’s not actually admissible as ‘evidence’ for prosecution.
I just don’t understand why Brereton didn’t hand what evidence he had to the AFP as soon as a likely incident of war crimes was identified.
Instead the AFP had to start again. 5 years of investigations… for naught. Clearly there’s no access to witnesses in Afghanistan anymore, a lot time has passed, memories have faded etc etc. I also understand that the Roberts-Smith / Fairfax defamation case has further undermined legal cases against a number of potential suspects as all the evidence is now in the public domain.
So, yeah…
etarip wrote:Just watched it. That kind of self-aggrandizing ‘warstory’ shit makes my blood boil. Complete lack of empathy for the people of Afghanistan. It’s complete bullshit that those podcasts are done as a ‘public service’ to veterans. It normalizes deviant behaviour. That ScoJo comes across as a complete flog.
As far as the investigations are concerned, I’m at a loss as to why the Brereton Report was handled the way it was. There’s a whole story in that but it’s been missed by most commentators.
Normally, in the military, if you’re undertaking an inquiry / fact find investigation into an incident and you identify that it is likely that an offence (civil or military) has been committed you are supposed to cease that part of the investigation and call in the military or civilian police (as appropriate).
Most of the ‘evidence’ in the Brereton enquiry was obtained under compellence. (Which means interviewees HAVE to answer questions, under threat of military prosecution if they’re still in the military). Which means it’s not actually admissible as ‘evidence’ for prosecution.
I just don’t understand why Brereton didn’t hand what evidence he had to the AFP as soon as a likely incident of war crimes was identified.
Instead the AFP had to start again. 5 years of investigations… for naught. Clearly there’s no access to witnesses in Afghanistan anymore, a lot time has passed, memories have faded etc etc. I also understand that the Roberts-Smith / Fairfax defamation case has further undermined legal cases against a number of potential suspects as all the evidence is now in the public domain.
So, yeah…
Makes me sick in the stomach and angry as fuck. If I had served I would be even angrier having this shit being associated with the Australian military. Seems like a few fuckwits being protected by the powers that be.
@etarip interesting points re investigation having to start from scratch with AFP. Do you think this is deliberate obfuscation or just inefficient protocols being followed.
Meanwhile scojo is out in the community, the bloke is seriously mentally imbalanced.
IMHO, nothing will happen to him. Distasteful as it is, I doubt there is enough there to pursue any action.
So he’ll keep being a self-promoting pest.
Dark humour has its place in stressful situations. But it should stay there, in that context, between the people in that situation together. Not become an ego trip and draw card for weirdos
IMHO, nothing will happen to him. Distasteful as it is, I doubt there is enough there to pursue any action.
So he’ll keep being a self-promoting pest.
Dark humour has its place in stressful situations. But it should stay there, in that context, between the people in that situation together. Not become an ego trip and draw card for weirdos
@andy-mac
“interesting points re investigation having to start from scratch with AFP. Do you think this is deliberate obfuscation or just inefficient protocols being followed”
I honestly don’t know. If I had to pick one reason I’d say “ego”. The investigator went full CSI Afghanistan instead of just saying “yes, there is clear evidence of war crimes. We have passed details to the AFP”
batfink wrote:Interesting article gsco.
Could have been written any time over the last 50 years, just change a few country names, some dollar figures etc.
Actually, it was written many times over the last 50 years. Their policy and stance hasn’t changed. Once they got away with overthrowing the democratically elected government of Allende and installing a mass murdeing puppet of Pinochet then all bets were off. They could get away with anything. And they did.
Glad you’ve caught up.
And Cato was Inspector Clouseau’s sidekick.
Like I've said before. Terrorism isn't all about suicide bombers and flying planes into buildings.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/02/aussie-wanker-push-inflation-cy...
Explains the current state of Australia's economy.
He actually uses the Rum Corps terminology at the end - well done! Been going on about that parallel for a couple of years now. Monopolies that manipulate supply and mark up for thirsty demand is aka 'The Australia Tax' and it's existed here since the 1790s.
I do like 'wanker-push' inflation, that one's a new one.
velocityjohnno wrote:https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/02/aussie-wanker-push-inflation-cy...
Explains the current state of Australia's economy.
He actually uses the Rum Corps terminology at the end - well done! Been going on about that parallel for a couple of years now. Monopolies that manipulate supply and mark up for thirsty demand is aka 'The Australia Tax' and it's existed here since the 1790s.
I do like 'wanker-push' inflation, that one's a new one.
Wow, VJ you will turn into a new Blowin. This article tackles some issues but it is written in such hostile language that it's unreadable. Putting all temporary visas into one bucket and forming hardcore opinions without going into more details is unprofessional, to say the least. Cheap populism is what it is. The fact is, Australia is one of the hardest (if not the hardest) countries in the world to emigrate into.
I guess I'll get banned then.
I was more concerned with the Rum Corps part of the article, where prices are pushed artificially high for those living here, no matter how they get here. I've reflected that the joke may actually be on those who come, as they are suddenly in this very high cost environment, too.
You also didn't preface the article with 'the most exalted website Macrobusiness' or some such compliment so that's another black mark against you.
Ah.
Flollo's comment has got me thinking: if Australia is one of the hardest places in the world to get in to, how come we have one of the highest levels of population growth - for developed countries? It ain't local births > deaths.
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.