It's always fascinating to witness Australian leaders putting our best foot forward on the international stage, standing up for what we believe in.
Julia Gillard has recently continued Australia's tradition of courting U.S. sentiment. Her injudicious comments erroneously accusing Julian Assange and Wikileaks of illegal activities was a rush to judgment in an attempt to display solidarity with her U.S counterparts - as is her deafening silence in her failure to publicly defend Assange's right to the presumption of innocence..
John Howard elevated obsequiousness almost to an artform with his fawning devotion to George W. Bush and his somewhat dodgy administration. I believe with a teensy bit more effort, Julia Gillard will achieve parity with Mr Howard on this one - cementing Australia's reputation as a perennial minion of the United States and it's interests.

But what can we do? we depend on the Americans for border protection, we cannot defend our shores on our own.

Just as a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day, Julia did the right thing.

Let us learn from Israel - when dealing with Americans, the rule is:
Always say what they like to hear, then act on our own best interests and morals.

ohh...ahh...
what can ya do

dogs like smelling each others butts

fat rises..abouve the milk
so does scum rise..abouve the waters

larell..needs his hardly
dean martin..needs his jerry lewis

israel needs its lapdog/usa
and its dog..needs its pet

and were it
the yes man...of yes maam's
we bend over..they do their business as usual

i think its like stockholme syndrom
or just dogs lying down with other dogs..exchanging the fleas
while collectivly..fleecing their captive flock...via the ol boys club[law]

Well why don't we try breaking ranks, cultivate the Chinese as allies?
an ostensible evil against a manifest one. When it comes to the "evil" stakes, the US has it all over China. China only takes in pariah states like North Korea because it can't cut through the ideology insulating the west, and it's an avuncular relationship or NK would have lashed out long ago. Besides, China's joined the club, it's as decadent and disparate as downtown Dallas. So we can't complain about it being unprincipled..
I say we give up on the US, a lost cause anyway (indeed frankly an embarrassment), and start chuming-up with the yellow peril? Better the devil you know, you know..

“But what can we do? we depend on the Americans for border protection, we cannot defend our shores on our own.”

The Americans protect us? Who are they protecting us from?

We have to learn from Israel? Bugger that.

We should say what they want to hear and then do our own thing… eww.

Besides, I have no reason to take the Palestinian lands and livelihoods off them.

I have the same line but different answer.

"But what can we do? we depend on the Americans for border protection, we cannot defend our shores on our own.

Now I know not everyone's in favour of having nukes in W.A....but the fact is..........with ten in place......just as a precautionary and don't F..k with us measure........then US protection will only be as alias in the event of world war 111.

Simple.

BLUE

If he's innocent then he should go to Sweden and face the charges against him. What evidence is there that Sweden will be more likey to extradite Assange to the US than Britain? Sweden is a relatively neutral country. Britain is the US strongest ally, bar none.

How can we know that Assange isn't hiding behind these claims of fear of extradition to the US, to avoid facing justice in Sweden?

None of us can know whether he did this or not. Assange should fight his case in court. Ortherwise he is doing exactly what he claims of the conspirators in the west. Using his power to break the rules.

Its deeply ironic that those who complain that Assange charcter is being maligned, in an attempt to subvert his message, are willing to do exactly the same thing to the women making these complaints.

*was a rush to judgment in an attempt to display solidarity with her U.S counterparts - as is her deafening silence in her failure to publicly defend Assange's right to the presumption of innocence.*

Poirot, that is nothing more then your assumption. Personally I see
no reason why our Govt should be fighting with other Govts, just to
satisfy the extremists in our midst.

Philosophically we are indeed reasonably closely aligned with what
the US stands for. Not everything, but quite a bit. Personally
I don't think that Barack Obama is too bad a prez either.

And yes, we are a minion. A mere 20 million out of 6 billion.
Hardly a superpower.

Jewely,

"The Americans protect us? Who are they protecting us from?"

-China mainly, even Indonesia. Without the Americans they would have already invaded us and made us their slaves, in the best case.

"We have to learn from Israel? Bugger that."

-Learn to please the Americans verbally, lick their ego, then go behind their back and do whatever we want.

"Besides, I have no reason to take the Palestinian lands and livelihoods off them."

-No indeed, this is one area where we need no lessons from anybody: we already did so to the native Australians, and much more efficiently.

Squeers: As much as I don't like the Americans, it is better to fall in their hands than the yellows'. Remember Tibet! Remember Tiananmen Square, Remember what they want to do to Taiwan, had the Americans not stopped them. Remember also the conditions in the American quarter of conquered Berlin, compared with the conditions in the soviet quarter.

The Australian army is about the size of the defeated Tibetan army: what could we possibly do if 1,000,000 Chinese soldiers marched in? Do you really believe that if we befriend them they will have any sentiments for us once our ores will become too expensive on the free market?

Am I missing something here? 'Poirot' makes a fair statement about the Australian leadership, then comes these snide remarks about Israel and the US by cowardly people who hide behind quite bizarre 'names'. It's comforting to know that your doctors and therapists allow you into the computer room to try and express yourselves.

Maybe one day, with proper care and treatment, you'll again be allowed to re-enter society at large and put away your deep-seated resentments and you'll know that no-one is jealous or out to get you just because the little voices are talking to you alone. And you'll learn to keep to the subject matter of the discussion.

ahh richard
from your first posting...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11378#193457

you have done your job well
you israelies...are far too clever to debait with
we see how you run your outpost...usa

and how you have organised blogging to a fine art
[just note the deletions..following the targeting of your first victim]..right from your first answer..

you guys are just too clever by half
well done

lest we forget..phyciatry..is led by you lot

anyone...not condoning the invasion/genocide of palistein..must be crazey...right?

two states is your solution..
because the invaded..still outnumber the invaders

god gave...and god took away
man writing a letter...[belfore]..isnt god saying all is forgiven

you treat usa like a minion
usa treats us like a minion
but dont be sasaying this is by gods will
or everytghing is gods will...[god dont judge..so i wont either]

but soon..yoyu suck the last drop of blood..last dollar..from usa
soon you suck the last drop of water from the dead sea
soon the world will see the fruits of the mossad
soon we reap the harvest..

and minions grow up..out of faulse idiologies

those thinking they own god..
realise god is owner..not ever owned
and there comes a time./.to pay the rent

northern jews arnt semites..[yiddish-bolchovics]
its the true-semites..[palistinians]..that are dying

you defend the indefensable
even 400 nukes...wont make peace..only ever more pieces
[in gods beloved city]...perpetual invasion has turned into dust

So if China or Indonesia decided to take over Aussie… we believe the Americans would interfere for any other reason than their own homeland security that they use for interfering with everyone else all over the world?

And if someone like Israel attacked they’d do nothing? If China attacked would they even want to get into it with them?

What do we have here that USA considers worth defending?

Poirot, you say:

"Julia Gillard has recently continued Australia's
tradition of courting U.S. sentiment. Her injudicious
comments erroneously accusing Julian Assange and
Wikileaks of illegal activities was a rush to judgment
in an attempt to display solidarity with her U.S
counterparts - as is her deafening silence in her
failure to publicly defend Assange's right to the
presumption of innocence."

I'm just wondering whether there may not be a number of erroneous assumptions underlying that assessment, one which on the surface seems reasonable enough.

I guess the first assumption is that a GOA* posture of 'courting US sentiment' resonates with the Australian electorate, and, appropriately 'managed', or 'spun', duly translates to votes come election time. What if, however, a certain proportion of votes routinely cast at any (and/or all) Australian elections don't actually have their origins in the actions of genuinely enrolled and eligible electors, but are effectively in the gift of some other entity?

Could it be, if such an hypothetical entity actually operates in this way in the Australian electoral context, that the selection, grooming, and political career development of the GOA leadership pool across the 'party' spectrum has as a primary goal the emplacement of such persons in the recognised positions of political leadership?

Could it be that in the absence of any benchmark available to the Australian public as to the level and direction of genuine voting support, such hypothetical entity may, with nobody being the wiser, advance or retard the electoral fortunes of both parties and individuals according to the level and character of GOA obsequiousness deemed necessary?

Could it be that it was necessary that the public face of WikiLeaks had to be an Australian one, in order that a very public world-wide scapegoating of the 'messenger' could most smoothly proceed to a perhaps desired conclusion of demonstrating extraterritorial applicability of US 'law' to citizens of any nation? I mean, the Australian alliance is 'rock solid', isn't it?

*GOA: An acronym for Government of Australia, expressed in the US diplomatic vernacular evidenced in the leaked cables.

I am for an Australia-US alliance but not at any price and not if it means subservience or a betrayal of the electorate in relation to national sovereignty issues. A true friend does not insist but consults and respects the other.

The US is not about to take over Australia in the physical sense, even if it wields influence in other ways such as ecomonically and strategically (foreign policy). I would not trust a China-Australia alliance at the same level on many fronts. We can have a friendly relationship with China but again, do we betray a number of human rights and belief in democracy just for economic purposes. It is short term thinking.

There is no guarantee that the US would come to our aid in the event of an invasion. Would it be in their long term interests? Would outrage on the ground in the US be enough to spur the government to come to our aid? I am not sure that the presence of US military facilities would be enough to stretch the friendship that far. America was slow to respond to the invasions in Europe in the beginning of WWII. The truth is we don't know what the US would do in that scenario.

However, it is difficult, and there are no easy answers. The US greatest weakness is a perceived and a real lack of integrity in many foreign dealings. Obama alluded to this in his statement about being a better global citizen but it won't happen while there is too much power vested in the corporations that depend on government policy to protect their interests overseas.

I like the Squeers suggestion.

Their planes would be cheaper too, and at least Chinese know where Australia is, now they own most of it.

He's right, China is the workshop for the USA, the source of all the junk the USA feel they need, so America can hardly afford to fall out with them now, can they?

So, why not move some of our security over thataway?

At least they are 'close' to us.

As for Gillard, a total lost cause.

Very doubtful she will last to the next election too.

Forrest,

It does seem that there is a blueprint in Australian political machinations that seeks to perpetually deliver representatives with an unquestioning loyalty to the U.S. irrespective of that country's actions.
Can anyone recall any Australian government publicly criticising any major U.S. foreign policy decisions?

The Australian connection to Wikileaks through Julian Assange and Gillard's rapid-fire condemnation is interesting if we consider that Australia is seen as an extension of U.S. interests in matters of international concern.

Pelican's point regarding America's late entry into WWI is pertinent...and WWII. Still, it would be difficult to imagine the U.S. standing back it Australia was seriously threatened...although, one gets the impression that American has turned the corner in its absolute ability to maintain hegemony - it is probably in the first phase of decline.

Poirot

I think Gillard's machine-gun response to Wikileaks was probably very much like the Rudd comment on Henson's 'porn shots'.

Rudd, although he probably did find them offensive, simply blurted out what he thought the punters wanted to hear.

So too with Gillard's silly comments on the leaks.

This is what happens when politics is run by phone polls.

I'm reading the Megalogensis Quarterly Essay on the end of ideas (never mind ideals) 'Trivial Pursuits'.

Not 'exciting' but a good round-up of the failures of the last decade or so of our political drones, and we punters failure to demand more and better.

Worth a read.

Of course we're a minion, what else could a country of 20 million, who won't spend a decent amount of their income on defence, during peace time, be? The US will come to our aid, if it is in their interest, just as we go to their aid, at least in token, because it's in our interest.

The mere fact that other countries have to answer the same question is our main protection. Sit back & enjoy you twits, more than a few young Ozzies have died to maintain that doubt that keeps you safe.

We also go with the US because the majority of Ozzies agree, mostly, with their actions.

So we are a minion, get used to it. Now of course, with this fool Gillard swanning around the international stage we are a laughing stock as well.

TBC,

As you point out, Julia was following standard operating procedure, knowing that if the higher echelons decree that something is "illegal", then the plebs will assume that their leaders are in possession of knowledge that confirms their stance.
Most people are simple souls, interested mainly in the conduct of their own affairs - and they are taught from an early age that it is right and good to tell the truth. That they suspect that governments throughout the world indulge in various dubious activities and diplomatic shenanigans is something they take in their stride. They accept it because they are not privy to classified information and they have no way of disabusing themselves of this notion.
Along comes a mechanism that allows transparency and even the promise of confirming these suspicions by revealing the truth, and the first reaction of Western world leaders is condemnation.
It seems that the ideal of "truth" as an example of supreme virtue only applies to the lower orders, and that the selective suppression of it, is the lifeblood of the ruling elite and their agents.

Quite so Poirot, but 'the church' is not just an 'agent' here but a parallel state in full cahoots with the nation-states in which they reside and bleed dry with special privileges via their supernatural status.

No hegemony is complete without the church-state nexus (and note which comes first there) hence the reluctance to diminish it here by Gillard and her political drones.

Our Baptist PM has discovered this truth having once, briefly, pretended to be an 'atheist'.

The Abracadabra words for our political leaders, of course, are once again 'in the national interest'.

This is the political catch-all phrase that is as handy as the religious one starting 'Our Father in Heaven' (and zillion variations thereof).

Those phrases, once uttered, render the receiving ear quite leaden, and the brain quite dead.

Jewely,

"What do we have here that USA considers worth defending?"

Mainly their reputation.

The fact is, that Taiwan, despite considered a thorn for China, was not invaded: China is still too afraid of America's nuclear reprisal, but if the USA fails to protect Australia, they will be called bluff on Taiwan, and the rest of the world, including Europe will also desert the now-useless USA.

If however the Americans could excuse themselves and save their blood by saying "oh, those Assange-supporters down under are not our friends, so why should we help them now?", they would gladly use that opportunity.

Ah, you're singing my tune, TBC. I've been saying for ages that the church parasitises power; its natural habitat is in symbiosis with government, and government requites the relationship by exempting it from paying taxes and granting sundry privileges.
Poirot's quite right too, we're taught not to question authority, and to accept our political paradigm as not only unquestionable, but actually "virtuous"--what a laugh! Thus we westerners (in the main) look with a jaundiced and sanctimonious superciliousness on all "Others". What did Edward Said call it: "orientalism". Anything outside good old westernism is suspect at best. Similarly, popular democracy (the tyranny of the herd) is automatically deemed superior to all contenders; that is without assessing it critically as a working model. There are some things you just don't question in the west, it seems, including popular democracy, capitalism, religious free-loading and allegiance to the US---or whichever western brother is most powerful, notwithstanding that our allies would all cut and run unless it was in their interest to defend, or there was a buck to be made.

Squeers, you might appreciate this, from the Duke of Wellington whilst at dinner at Walmer Castle, Nov. 17, 1831.

Remember, 'democracy' did not appear with Magna Carta, as some poor fools seem to believe, but is only a very recent idea, and one that the ruling class much resented, then as much as now:

"After dinner I mentioned Lord Byron's sentence in manuscript, from a book which Mr. Murray had lent me, that democracy is only an aristocracy of black-guards. 'A democracy,' said the Duke, 'if a real democracy could be formed, would be the strongest of all governments; but then, remember, the strongest is the most tyrannical!'."

Nowadays, any hope for 'democracy' in the West have faded, and we continue with the real 'black-guards' running the show, albeit not all drawn from the inheriting class in this working-class nation state we endure.

*Along comes a mechanism that allows transparency and even the promise of confirming these suspicions by revealing the truth, and the first reaction of Western world leaders is condemnation*

Well of course, Poirot. You are seeing all this one eyed, from
your particular perspective and culture. Within the diplomatic
corps, things are said, what people honestyly think, that simply
cannot be expressed publicly.

You forget that Asians, Chinese and Japanese in particular, go
a long way, in order "not to lose face" as they call it. In Arab
countries, pride is everything. You could frankly start wars over
this, if it were leaked, what one global leader thought of another
etc.

Let me put it to you this way. If every one of your so called
friends, told you what they honestly thought of you, you might
well not have so many friends left. You might feel insulted.

Perhaps not you, but that is how people react, its a human foible.

Now wether we like it or not, world leaders have to get along,
its in our interest that they do. Even if they personally dislike
one another.

All the Wikileaks stuff will do is rub salt into wounds and perhaps
open them further. Its pointless and could be highly damaging.

Oh come on squeers, you do go on a bit.

"Democracy (the tyranny of the herd)". It sounds like the catch cry for some ratbag mob, meeting in some seedy hall in the backstreets somewhere.

Please explain just how democracy has exerted it's tyranny on you, I would love to hear.

I have lead a most unconventional life, but our democracy has permitted me to;

Do whatever I wanted, wherever I wanted.

Live wherever I wanted, in or out of the country.

Leave, & reenter the workforce, as it suited me, & the games I wanted to play.

Breed , or not breed, as choice or accident dictated, in fact I can't imagine a freer life.

Sure I can't use explosives, without a permit, & I can no longer drive at 100 miles per hour on the highway between capitals, as I once could. Annoying as these restrictions may be, I am prepared to accept them for the greater good. After all, it is probably only us superior beings, & not the general public, who should ever have had access to such things.

So please tell us all how democracy has encroached on your life. I'm more worried about lefty ratbag attempts to restrict my present freedoms, & those of my kids than any restrictions imposed by democracy.

Poirot:

Thanks for this thread. Both sides of politics in this country are very much in favour of Australia remaining a committed US ally for the foreseeable future. Canberra and Washington seem to share similar views at present. However, there is current debate about what the US expects from the alliance and the nature of American power. Add to this the fact that Australia now faces challenges in its own neighbourhood, which must have first priority, maintaining support for the alliance will I guess, rest upon Washington's success in convincing our government that US policies are both necessary and legitimate and that Australia's contributions to mutual security are not taken for granted. From what I've read, some of the biggest "obstacles may arise if the US made politically difficult demands on Australia in combating terror, sought military support that forced unacceptable risks, or drew Australia into a major conflict with China over Taiwan."

One website quoted that "the greatest potential threat to the alliance may be differing views about the security challenges emanating from a rising China."

Hasbeen,
I shall forego the pleasure of disburdening myself to you, except to say that the tyranny of populism is the way responsibility and self-governance is lost, attenuated, among the crowd. Popular democracy is much more a collectivism than communism, which is devoted to human needs and fulfilment rather than quotidian grind and glut.
As TBC indicates, even the conservatives were against it. Here's Edmund Burke:
<Aristotle observes that a democracy has many striking points of resemblance with a tyranny. Of this I am certain, that in a democracy the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority, whenever strong divisions prevail in that kind of policy, as they often must—and that oppression of the minority will extend to far greater numbers, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. In such a popular persecution, individual sufferers are in a much more deplorable condition than in any other. Under a cruel prince they have the balmy compassion of mankind to assuage the smart of their wounds, they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings: but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes are deprived of all external consolation: they seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species>

That conspiracy, of indifference and base appetite, proceeds unimpeeded by ethics or even evidence of its rapaciousness, and wiser heads are lost among the clamour. But as I say, it's one of those institutions we hold as sacred. But like all such institutions, it doesn't stand scrutiny; even a cursory examination is damning. Perhaps that's why we refuse to look at it.

*But like all such institutions, it doesn't stand scrutiny; even a cursory examination is damning. Perhaps that's why we refuse to look at it.*

Squeers, nobody is claiming that democracy is not full of flaws.
The claim is that its the best thing that we have. Now for
Squeers, a tyranny/dictatorship according to Squeers, might sound
like heaven, but frankly it sounds like hell for the rest of us.

Yabby:
<Now for
Squeers, a tyranny/dictatorship according to Squeers, might sound
like heaven, but frankly it sounds like hell for the rest of us>

Of course it suits your defenceless position, Yabby, to misrepresent me like that in these threads; why would I "want" tyranny? As I've often said, I'm in favour of "inclusive," sober and sustainable democracy. That is a responsible democracy whose voters are "educated" in the vital importance ethics, politics, economy and the art of civil society, who see life as a practical exercise devoted to answering the question, "how should we live?", rather than merely what's to be had. As Marx said, the point of philosophy is not to understand the world, but to change it.
Our relationships with powerful allies are predicated on ultra-conservative realism; that the balance of power is at it is and must be preserved, or cannot be changed, no matter the stink. At the very least Australia should be in meaningful dialogue with China and discussing the kind of human-world we, as a race, should be striving for, comparing notes and finding common-ground, instead of remaining manically antitheitcal and holding on to the diseased world we've created, or eurocentrically insulating ourselves, or favouring a neurotically secretive, shallow and obsessive US hegemony.
Our current "democracy" lacks leadership. I don't mean "a leader", but a conscience and senses of proportion, prudence and direction. Mob rule, the sway of the lowest common denominators, has none of those qualities. Popular democracy demonstrates all the restraint and circumspection of our celebrated Christmas sales---which of course amounts to the highest ethic of capitalism.

BTW, someone above, New Zealand is more of a minnow than the OZ and it thumbs its nose at those we toady to.

Lexi,

I’d be interested to hear of any claims from mainstream Australian politicians (not greens or independents) that the US expects too much from the Alliance.

We have provided token support for the US in Iraq, and barely more than that in Afghanistan. Much respect to those who have been forced to carry out Canberras limited flag waving exercise, but this is all it is. Tokenism. The US does a great deal for the Alliance merely by resisting the urge to say so.

The most recent white paper on defence clearly set out Australias strategic risks and sought to address them within our limited capacities. We are moving into a period of rapidly changing global power structures. In the past, such change has almost invariably been accompanied by much violence. Our best defence is our relationship with our allies. Chiefly, the US, but increasingly Japan and Indonesia.

The US itself is deeply divided over what security challenges China does pose. As Kevin Rudd rightly pointed out, we should do everything we can to help China become a responsible global power, but we should be prepared for the possibility that it won’t.

*That is a responsible democracy whose voters are "educated" in the vital importance ethics, politics, economy and the art of civil society, who see life as a practical exercise devoted to answering the question, "how should we live?*

But Squeers, now you want to start educating the voters, in the things
that interest you. You are free to stand on that political platform
and convince them, but I put it to you that the majority would simply
not be interested.

In a democracy you might just have to accept that those not interested, have a vote too.
Many millions out there are quite
happy with their lives. They focus on their famiily, their friends,
their footy team, their dream to win lotto next week.

This talk of "educating people" sounds to me like what the Marxists
did in Russia etc in their camps, for those who did not play the
Marxist game, the Govt's way. Scary stuff indeed.

How we should live is up to each of us to decide for themself and
live accordingly. Our society allows each of us, to do exactly that.

Its a furphy to suggest that only the correctly educated, would know
how we should live.

As to question of what does the U.S.have to defend about Australia?. e.g our borders etc,
such notions are not realistic. The U.S is focussed on the protection of its own borders,
it's own interests, as is clear through Wikileaks exposures and other sources.

Logically the Indonesians would be the obvious country to enter a territorial disagreement with Australia.
An overpopulated group of islands nearby with a history of annexation of neighbouring territory e.g. West Papua etc.
Historically our own ability to protect our own borders has been the most relevant tool of discouragement for such disagreement.

Recently things have changed with Indonesia set to take delivery of Russian aircraft, while we dither with the U.S's drawing board theoretical (fraught with faults and cost blowouts) aeroplane (strike fighter?) ultimately inferior anyway, as discovered by the ADF in it's own theoretical testing.

The U.S. Alliance is effecting our own defence capacity to defend our own borders as we speak against the advice of our own defence boffins !?. Why?.

Because they've got the Nuke?. Of course they are the only country to have tested such a device on a population!. So it's not clear that they wouldn't do so again, if they thought it suited their best interests, or from their point of view.

What do you think about them apples?.

Of course your right Poirot in pointing out the embarrassing side of our relationship with the U.S. and our,(dare I say) conga line of P.M's, but when you drill down more seriously these so called beneficial associations with the U.S, like euphemistically named Free Trade Agreements etc, are just a crock really. And right now I feel more vulnerable and less reassured by such associations anyway.

China should not be considered a threat to Australia because it just isn't,. It has never shown any desire to expand it's own territory with the exception of Tibet, considered a strategic necessity Vs USSR not a desire to expand territorially, let alone way down here.

Is it possible for Australia to act in it's own interests for a change in terms of policy direction, defence capability etc, without consideration for such alliances?, and can we survive in our region independently?, I like to think we could.

Thinker 2 your right on the ball. Now two things can happen when all have nukes in the backyard. 1..All will respect all others...hence...all will die if one pushes the button.......and 2...no-one will push the button........hence rule number one.

In all.....it will be balanced world.....or game-over. Now the cold war is a perfect example of why peace is the winner in a world of know one wants to die.

Again........simple.

All bullies.........no fight.

BLUE

Good thinking Deep Blue.

Now, whose idea was it to arm Burma, Congo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Italy, Sri Lanka, Iceland, Indonesia and numerous other tinpot nations with a full set of nuke-u-lar weapons?

Let's work for a return to the world of M.A.D., shall we?

I'll feel so much safer.

Arrrrrrrr yes...what to do with the in-sane dictators......well slowly arm all who don't have mental problems:) and keep supplying ak-47's at a price all can afford.......and when they past the test.........we just might share:)

What do you think?

BLUE

The world history shows us that to become a 'world leader' you have to have some form of mental 'issue'.

So, is there a fine line between 'insane' and 'just a bloody danger'?

I suspect not.

I would prefer to have energy put into stopping the building of so much war hardware.

World leaders can be given a duelling pistol if they want to show leadership, and fight it out with their equally dangerous opposites, leaving the working class of their nation-states at home, safe and not fighting for the expansionist desires of businesses, which is really all that 'war' is about.

Paull:

I agree we're the oldest friend and ally of the US in the Asia-Pacific region and second closest ally in the world. Australia's self-reliant defence position in SE Asia and the South Pacific contributes to mutual security which is strengthened by US Security guarantee and access to US intelligence, defense science, weapons, and military logistics support. The alliance also enhances Australia's status in world affairs, especially in Asia. But as I stated earlier maintaining support for the alliance will rest upon Washington's success in convincing the Australian public and pollies that US policies are both necessary and legitimate and that Australia's contributions to mutual security are not taken for granted.

Listened to something today about Aussie having an inland sea and the different explorers that thought they could find it. Then some English dude that went and studied what he later in a book called The Dead Heart. It became unpatriotic to talk about The Dead Heart, depressing as it was.

But was interesting to hear it pointed out how we should move the cities to the desert and leave the good land for crops etc. The radio men were also talking about how our deserts are a good deterrent; we can’t live there so no one else is going to want them.

Although for awhile they thought some amazing type of engineer would come forward and solve the no water in the desert problem – because they assumed deserts lacked life.

I keep hearing how Aussie shouldn't take on any more immigrants because we don’t have the water.

So who would want our land really? And if China or anyone said "hey lease us the Simpson for a few hundred years because we have an idea and we'll give you many trillion" - would we object?

Blue cross.......look at old Hitler here http://tinyurl.com/2f2dmgh and tell me what you could of seen at the time of his rule. In-sane was the call after the monstrosities that he commited. Pole pot, North Korean general whats his face, and maybe Obama him self, could be ticking time-bombs a far as rulers/leaders are concerned.

"The world history shows us that to become a 'world leader' you have to have some form of mental 'issue'......

I don't think you would class all as suspect, however...all who are given power were once quite normal people at one point.

Poirot said....

"It's always fascinating to witness Australian leaders putting our best foot forward on the international stage, standing up for what we believe in.
Julia Gillard has recently continued Australia's tradition of courting U.S. sentiment. Her injudicious comments erroneously accusing Julian Assange and Wikileaks of illegal activities was a rush to judgment in an attempt to display solidarity with her U.S counterparts - as is her deafening silence in her failure to publicly defend Assange's right to the presumption of innocence..
John Howard elevated obsequiousness almost to an artform with his fawning devotion to George W. Bush and his somewhat dodgy administration. I believe with a teensy bit more effort, Julia Gillard will achieve parity with Mr Howard on this one - cementing Australia's reputation as a perennial minion of the United States and it's interests."

Any-thing sane in what these leaders and the fearless crusaders are doing? But what a year........... The US and Australia....need each other for varies reasons like the geographical position for us ( WA..great spot for fighting any on-coming invaders, low cost uranium, we happen to be white, with a healthy addiction to their culture, and I could keep going on about the interests they have for us....and I think nukes were once a discussion point for WA on keeping any ( in-sane 2/3 world leaders from getting any funny ideas.

Australia - The Perennial Minion........In reality, I cant see it any other way.

BLUE

Depends Jewely on whether this trillion dollar idea of the Chinese creates pollution for example, or a truly dead heart or Simpson. I would have to know the detail of the idea before I could feel comfortable about it. Sounds like a good idea though?. Wouldn't have a problem if it was Chinese as long as it was a good idea.

I've often thought we should invite Israel to set-up their state somewhere in Australia's interior (with a bit of coastline). They could then share defence responsibilities etc. They'd probably feel right at home.

The only reason Australian isn’t a Japanese country today is because the Americans came out here and fought with us to defeat the Japanese.
My Dad remembers there being 100,000 Americans here in World War 2

General McArthur(The American general in charge) was one of those generals who knew how to fight a war, unlike Churchill who sent thousands of our men to die by sending them to land on a certain beach overlooked by cliffs in Turkey. You all know it. It’s called Gallipoli. A major Australian defeat and bloodbath. We were sent there by the British.

When the Japanese were advancing on Australia, Churchill wanted our army to go and defend Britain. He said let Australia fall we’ll get it back later.

Back to General McArthur. The Australian government decided not to defend Queensland and drew the Brisbane line. My Dad will tell you the names of people he knew who just walked out of their homes up here and fled south. It was general McArthur who said, no, we’ll defend Australia in the North. What a wise decision that was, imagine trying to defend the rest of Australia from attack after the Japanese had established bases up here in the North.

It was also McArthur who used planes to defend the army on the ground. Churchill was to set on the idea that his beloved Navy was the supreme fighting force in Britain and maintained a separation of the forces.

Why we give Britian more credit for our victory in WW2 and say little about the fact that it was actually America who pulled our bacon out of the fire puzzles me

Cherful,

Thats a very lopsided view of Macat=rthur

Firstly, Macarthur was NOT a great general. He was a massive egotist. He allowed his air forces to be destroyed on the ground by the Japanese in the Phillipines. He later escaped leaving most of his men behind but not without taking 7.5 million (in todays money) from the Phillipino's.

The majority of the land forces that he commanded (in battle)during the fighting in New Guniea, were Australian. Ably led by Australian Generals. However Macarthur did everything in his power to exclude Australians from the uppper levels of command. He surrounded himself with his mates from the Phillipines days, the so-called Battan gang, many of whom were entirely incompetent.

Marcarthur claimed to have been present for the fighting in New Guniea, and in fact was awarded a mdeal on that basis, however it was never true. Marcarthur routinely lied about his exploits. He sought, and was granted control over what the asutalian media was allowed to report. They were limited to reprinting his comminques which were notorious lies designed to make MAcarthur look good.

He was finally fired during the Korean war, for threatening to nuke the North Koreans/Chinese against the wishes of his governement.

Macarthur does not come close to Churchill when it comes to Generalship. Macarthur was only ever interested in the glory and wealth of Macarthur. Churchill was the foundation upon which victory over Hitler was built.

If what you say about McArthur is right then it seems as though both him and Churchill were detrimental to Australian interests in WW2 given the huge strategy mistake at Gallipoli by Churchill and the fact that Churchill was prepared to let Australia fall to the Japanese,undefended. It was Australian Prime Minister, Curtain who went against Churchill and brought our troops home to defend Australia instead of Britain as Churchill wanted.
(Although it was McArthur who made the decision to defend Australia from the north rather then let Japanese bases and towns be estalished there, with the drawing of the Brisbane line by our politicians.)

Australian soldiers were magnificient in their fight against the Japanese, as Australian troops always are but they could not have beaten the Japanese on their own, being hopelessly outnumbered and lacking the military equipment they would have needed. It was the American soldiers who fought in the Islands and Pacific who gave them the support they needed to save Australia from the Japanese.

Whether they would have done so is debateable had they not themselves been attacked by the Japanese,but the point I was trying to make is they were no different in being prepared to let Australia fall to the Japanese than Churchill was when the chips were down. So why does Churchill get applauded and America barely acknowledged.

The truth is all nations including ours act in their own self-interest
especially in frightening war times. Britain was no better or worse than America,but in truth for whatever reason it was the American military who fought alongside Australian soldiers to win victory in the pacific.

Heaven help our history.

Churchill was a idiot megalomaniac, all heroism & no sense, who would most certainly have lost the war, if Hitler had not been worse.

Given his way, Churchill would have sent all the Spitfires & Hurricanes, & even more importantly, all the men able to fly them, to France, where they would have been eliminated. It took considerable effort by many players to stop him loosing the entire RAF.

Dunkirk could not have occurred, & neither could the "Battle of Britain". The war, from our point of view, would have been over long before the Japs could have mounted a Pearl Harbour attack.

MacArthur was no better. It was the American ability to build a huge defense force, quickly, that won the war. The yanks were not much good in the early days, & neither was their equipment, but it was plentiful. They came so close to loosing in the Solomons that it wasn't funny.

The early yank gear was so bad it is almost unbelievable.

For example the Japs flew 30 Zero fighters into Lea PNG. They did receive some spare parts, but no replacement aircraft. As with our RAAF, there was quite a bit of patching together one aircraft from 3 wrecks.

By the time all thirty aircraft were destroyed they had shot down 390 American aircraft. Not a great attrition rate for the yanks, but those losses "held the fort" so to speak, while they developed the equipment to win easily, & at less cost.

Japanese military honour then prevailed. That brilliant air force detachment was left there to fight to the death as infantry, something they were not that good at.

Perhaps if the Japanese had not left small detachments to hopelessly try to defend isolated outposts all over the Pacific, MacArthur may have had more trouble "returning".

New & better weapons, & lost of them, plus better disease prevention won the Pacific war, not MacArthur. That & the US navy strategy of isolating & bypassing Japanese strength, rather than fighting for every beach as wanted by MacArthur.

Interesting that we are observing history and it's lessons.

And the truth revealed see's the international players doing what they shall, leaving Australia the perennial minion as described by Poirots original post which ever way we interpret the action of Macarthur, Churchill etc, especially when it comes to war.

It is not clear in my mind that we could be guaranteed support from the U.S, should a territorial dispute arise between Indonesia and Australia. It may be considered expedient or an international solution to allow our neighbours to unload some of their vast population into our vast expanses in the future.

Regardless, it is still ultimately and finally our responsibility to defend our own territory,
to make our decisions about our future.
Equally concepts such a profits based taxes on mining are a perfectly legitimate way of defending
the sovereignty of our nations resources from international exploitation both now and into the future.

Monies invested in taxpayer owned infrastructure such as the NBN increases our capacity to make future decisions and the retention of some
our wilderness wouldn't go astray for future generations either.

All these things are reduced by our dependence on international assistance their needs and their priorities.

The embarrassing bowing and scraping by both political sides in our country particularly towards the U.S is basically naive, a would probably make my war veteran father squirm in his seat, but then again he wouldn't say anything nice about the U.S personnel that he fought alongside in Darwin and north of it either.

Yes thinker 2, neither you or I, or anyone else can know if the US would come to our aid in any particular circumstances.

However, as I said, other countries are in the same position. Our strongest determent to attack is that any potential attacker can not know that the US won't come to our aid.

I believe we have a few decades before the deterioration in US strength reaches the stage that the threat of them coming to our aid will no longer shield us.

The answer is simple.
How much debt is America in? How much Debt is Europe in?
Who will, or would it be to pay for any Military? China will pay America?
You see , The obvious question is Who had taken it for granted and robbed and destroyed individual rights and Intelligent thought , and just as the Roman empire imploded , just as any other empire had imploded , The obvious in not that Omniscient and predetermined outcomes had caused it , but a consequence of, and due to Government Preditory nature to robb and enslave the pessants ;
Review Irish History for a period of about 1 thousand years; Government Free.
I survived every single attack from aggressors ,for it never had government elites to surrendor or depart on Imperial agression rampages.

Australia was a first world Nation, in fact it was at a certain point considered the last outpost of Western Civilization.

How quickly things change when Fourth world brainless Morons call themselves faceless gods of State, and sacrifice everyone and everything.
We ought to be the most powerful economic Nation on the face of the planet, but look what The Thief’s have done.

Being allied to the biggest bully and most hated kid in the schoolyard is not a role I ever aspired to.
The greatest threat to Australia's security is our servitude to the USA's military industrial complex. It would far more cost effective to build a domestic military industry focussed on *defence*, rather than spending money on second rate American attack machinery.
Wouldn't it be interesting to live in a world where all nations had an ability to defend their borders, but little or no ability to attack?
Being an island nation, Oz is probably in a better position to lead the world in this direction than most.