"China doesn't need to start any wars"

Taiwan will be relieved to hear that.

Although they might quickly come to realise that such statements make little to no sense to anyone who has even a passing understanding of history.

Mhaze,

It’s not becoming of you, behaving like a bankers mole.

Well here’s history…US began its losing streak with Korea, and hasn’t won a decisive victory since then (if actually any).…and in the end, sides with the old enemy…(suck-up to Iran eg), Treachery , and turns its Allies into the enemy…Israel at the moment , for one of many examples!

And a copy book picture of the Cuban Missile crisis in Taiwan, should be tolerated by China…
Or is that a case of one rule for the rich and another for the poor more accurately?

So where are your Christmas lights flashing in the dark, with your own interpretation of history

Well... I'm not sure what to say.

IF Taiwan's really really lucky, they might just become the next Ukraine.
Doesn't matter if tens of thousands of Taiwanese die or thousands of Aussies die too, as part of AUKUS defensive pact called to do our bit.

Just so long as the US can spend and make billions selling weapons, and Taiwan is destroyed and future governments become indebted by lend lease weapons and IMF loans and foreign bankers rushing in to feed off the scraps like vultures and other politicians and bankers all on the take for reconstruction, and maybe China will cop a punch in the face.
Maybe, maybe not... who cares as long as the money flows and the rest of the Taiwanese and Western citizens pay with their lives or pick up the tab with national debt right, then who cares?

It's all for 'national interests' and 'democracy' and liberal values'.

All wars are bankers wars you silly fool.

Funnily enough, the Taiwanese actually want independence from the CCP. They vote for it every time. But I guess those here who constantly barrack for the totalitarians will just assert (no evidence required) that they are duped by the Great Satan.

"All wars are bankers wars". There's ahistoric rubbish and there's childish tantrums and then there's whatever that type of thinking is.

I notice none of these geniuses ever try to address the issue of how Australia would benefit or function in a world governed by the totalitarian thugs that they so admire.

"US began its losing streak with Korea, and hasn’t won a decisive victory since then"

Well I think Kuwait (1990) will be surprised to hear that. OTOH Saddam (2003) will be relieved by the news. Oh, and there was that little kerfuffle called The Cold War (you might have heard of it...it was in all the papers!!) which the US won rather handily.

You don't have to be total ignorant of history to write as Diver Dan writes....but it helps.

AC seems to have this go-to assert that nations should just surrender to the totalitarian thugs he so admires because if they don't, thousands or millions will die. You know, like Britain should have surrendered in 1940/1. And like Alexander should have surrendered to Napoleon in 1812. Or Athens surrender to Datis in 490BC. Oh, I wonder which side should have surrendered when Germany invaded Russia in 1941? Tough call given that both were totalitarian regimes and AC always sides with totalitarian thugs.

Of course, the issue is Australia's stance on all this, and, as stated, Australia's position ought to be what's best for Australia. If Taiwan elects to surrender to the CCP threats, then we'll accept that and make our further arrangements accordingly. But defence of the liberal world order will remain the priority, at least so long as there is a liberal world order. OTOH Taiwan might want to fight to avoid suffering a genocide at the hands of the CCP...oh wait, AC is totally okey-dokey with genocide so long as the totalitarian thugs he so admires are doing it.

Just one final observation about AUKUS. In his book "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" Robert Conquest, writing more than 20 years ago, talks of the creation of The Anglosphere - a grouping of those nations that adhere to the legacy of British liberalism ie Britain, US, Australia, NZ, Canada and (later) India. Brexit, AUKUS and The Quad, brings the Anglosphere much closer to reality.

All polly waffle,
Australia doesn't have a position because if it did it would have declared itself so although it has tried to on occasions only to be shut down with political manipulation and consequential election.
How to control an ignorant society, give them more sport to amuse themselves by.
The proposed anglo/celtic concept of governance by way of an Anglosphpere is no more than wishful thinking concocted on the back of ignorance.
Australia has always been, and continues to allow itself to be, no more that a human resource especially in times of war.
The 'Anglosphere' is an outdated concept designed to alienate those around in the near vicinity of Australia not to mention the first nation which has no interest or desire to contributing to an 'Anglosphere'
The way things are moving at present India will be the centre of the proposed Anglosphere, and it will have little or no interest in UK/US policies, much less Australia, NZ and Canada
In fact The UK of old is long past it's use by date with the US to follow in about 20 years and all because of disrespect of other cultures.
If you think those aggrieved cultures are just going to bend over and saying 'please do it again' I wish you a long life if only to see how your ilk fares.