Australia - you're standing in it
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 blind following the blind ;)
- and on a side note… how exactly will continued facilitation through supply of weaponry and endless military conflict help climate change exactly ?
Prolonging a proxy war and enabling escalation on one front (Ukraine/Russia) whilst trying to say we are being threatened with possible war on another front (Taiwan/China) ??
The hypocrisy is stark.
If the west is directly involved in provoking others - how and why do so many commentators think they are not partly to blame or at the very least a contributing factor ;) ???
The game of denial is up.
The ruse of protecting and securing global safety etc is exactly that.
We can supposedly protect ‘our’ interests, yet if others do so it’s a crime ?
$$$
https://m.
ergo “you reap what you sow” ;)
https://m.
- and this for a little insight into why what is happening is happening. Learning from mistakes is one thing - doing it over and over again and trying to sell the idea as something different ? ;);)
Lies. Propaganda.
- The US wants war. It needs it. Hard though to actually fathom when it may come - when it’s not on your terms ;);)
And so easy to try blame somebody else.
https://m.
George Fkn Galloway!
Brilliant ;)
https://m.
Jelly Flater wrote:Brilliant ;)
Never a truer word said.
https://m.
Ha
Gold ;);)
Brother Stewie... Seems to be a theme with him...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-26/bill-shorten-national-disability-...
andy-mac wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k
Ha
Classic.
Btw, again, not widely known, and it doesn’t suit the amusing stereotypes, Defence policy is primarily made and executed by the civilian staff of the Department of Defence. The vast majority of whom have never studied strategy.
Jeebus Etarip, really?!!! That is really disturbing. What mechanisms are there for the guys with that knowledge to counter such decisions? Can’t imagine the big brass following ridiculous decisions. Surely not?
Civilian primacy. It’s the foundational principle of subordination of the military to government in western liberal democracies. It generally works, but is frustrating to see in action. It’s not just strategy - major decisions like acquisitions are made by civilians, not military officers. Again, there’s good reasons for that but it doesn’t always work. On the military side, we don’t have a strong strategic culture. Our historical reflex has been to favor tactical success over operational rigour or strategic acumen.
At the very top, there is a pairing between the military and civilian leadership - Chief of Defence Force and Secretary of the Department of Defence. The Vice Chief is paired with the Deputy Secretary for Strategy, Policy and Industry. Military ‘lead’ on what the force (Force Design) should look like, civilians lead on what to buy and the process of buying it and keeping it in service. (Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group)..
That works when they get along well, they mostly agree, and they stay out of each others chili. And the inverse. The old tropes about Colonel Blimp making all these knuckle-headed decisions are largely misdirected. They make plenty of knuckle-headed decisions, but about different stuff.
As far as formulation of strategy (White Paper, Strategic Updates, Defence Planning Guidance, Force Structure Review) goes, key documents are reasonably well consulted across the department and the ADF.
Two observations on challenges: 1. we don’t have a well articulated comprehensive national strategy. What is Australia’s Desiree place in the world and how does it arrange the elements of national power to get there?
2. The population is largely disengaged from the discussion. Aussies love to throw rocks at stupid decisions after they’ve been made. But are largely apathetic until it directly impacts us. And that works for government.
Maybe the injured attendant should seek assault charges?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-29/liberals-apologise-injuring-parli...
I think so.
Also, why do parliamentarians get to abstain from voting at all? Voters get fined for abstaining in elections. The clowns we elect can do it though in matters that effect the people that elected them.
""Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor, Shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie, Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tehan, Shadow Climate Change and Energy Minister Ted O'Brien, former deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, and backbenchers Zoe McKenzie and Sam Birrell all took to their feet after the dressing down to apologise on Wednesday morning."" from ABC Article.
Bunch of clowns running out. Hope someone finds the footage and puts Benny Hill theme music to it.
Latham is not very popular, even poorlean is cranky with him .
Extraordinary. This is One Nation NSW Leader #MarkLatham referring today to another elected politician who happens to be gay. #auspol pic.twitter.com/qIRBrieDUs
— Hugh Riminton (@hughriminton) March 30, 2023
Supafreak wrote:Latham is not very popular, even poorlean is cranky with him . https://twitter.com/hughriminton/status/1641255240904368131?s=46&t=5Rczx...
And was leader of the Labor party... Geez ...
Wonder how Australia would vote on a referendum about this ;)
https://m.
The big lie.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/03/07/generation-fd-how-neoliberalism-con...
...and always remember to keep the little people at the bottom (where they cannot rise above their station).
'The chief executive of Australia's peak industry association AiGroup, Innes Willox, said that, while a wage rise was needed, the ACTU proposal was "excessive" and would tip Australia into recession'.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-31/government-minimum-wage-increase-...
san Guine wrote:The big lie.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/03/07/generation-fd-how-neoliberalism-con......and always remember to keep the little people at the bottom (where they cannot rise above their station).
'The chief executive of Australia's peak industry association AiGroup, Innes Willox, said that, while a wage rise was needed, the ACTU proposal was "excessive" and would tip Australia into recession'.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-31/government-minimum-wage-increase-...
Excellent Crikey article.
A simplified version of this should be essential reading for all senior high school students, before they start both work and voting.
Australia - you’re standing in it
https://m.
Been watching your links jelly. Been good, thanks. Stopped pretty earlier on this one. Some pom in a hat who got a free yum cha has sympathy or preference for an alternative authoritarian or military government to overcome the endless arguments and frustration of elected democratic governments. Kool aid shit.
Careful what you wish for.
Btw I marched against the Iraq war and share the outrage those responsible haven’t been held to account.
Haha bonza ;)
I like the description of the Pom in the hat etc… he certainly is persistent.
And I’m not wishing for anything. I don’t blindly agree with it all - interesting perspective, though, from an immigrant that now calls Australia home…
Australia, after all, is home to mostly immigrants ;)
- The acknowledgment of Australia as a US vassal state and modern outpost of UK/US imperialism is pretty spot on.
This input is probably amongst some of the best reasons why Australia should investigate its unquestionable loyalty to US military strategy (or lack of).
The times of dictating to others purely through brute force are coming to an end. It doesn’t necessarily mean aligning any one particular way…
Diplomacy and the search for mutual respect and understanding without military intervention is in Australia’s national interest.
https://m.
Na reckon they should keep taking the advice from the Murdoch sock puppets over at Sky ...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/01/australian-libera...
andy-mac wrote:Na reckon they should keep taking the advice from the Murdoch sock puppets over at Sky ...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/01/australian-libera...
Dutton is completely unelectable. I can’t believe they selected him as a leader. His horrible performance as the immigration minister should be enough to sack him permanently. This article is 4 years old but very relevant. Someone with this track record shouldn’t be leading anything, let alone the whole country.
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/worst-ever-immigration-minister-asylum-s...
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.