Why do we have to keep sniveling to the US, when anyone with half a brain knows that the US needs another war to solve their economic problems!

WE do not seem to learn anything from recent history, when we went to war, "the coalition of the willing", based upon an outright lie ( and which most of our leaders knew was a lie!) when we invaded Iraq, bombed the crap out of it, and destroyed a nation and all of its historical infrastructure, the lie that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of Mass Destruction.

We lost a lot of good men once again, as we did in Vietnam and Korea, but still did not learn the lesson of Switzerland, remaining
neutral, instead of this ridiculous "Gung Ho" supporting a nation who appears to be intent on manipulating the start of another war of appeasement!

Our Defence Minister, Susan Ley, has just announced that "we will support the US unequivocally" in this latest foray into potential nuclear holocaust!

The argument of whether China has the right to declare a 12 mile zone of ownership around her Sprattly island facility, is an issue that should be decided by an international Court of Law, not by provacatively sending a warship into the zone of contention.

The US have for generations been the masters of "the creative threat"
to "up the ante" and put the country on a war footing, thereby solving their immediate economic problems, regardless of cost.

In war nobody wins, but a lot of people die, and a lot die terrible deaths, but unfortunately the politicians are immune from participation, and only read about the "statistics" in the comfort of their home.

We seem deliriously happy in wanting to engage in free trade with China, so why throw that away, by following the war-mongers to the brink?

I am a 77 years old ex-serviceman and can only say that the next world war will be very short and very tragic, due to the Nuclear content,so why don`t we STOP and THINK before throwing our cap into the middle?

You are old enough to have more sense. Nobody is "sniveling" to the US, which is being mismanaged by a real Left loon who requires to be called ( or his staff of morons) before a poor marine is allowed to draw a bead on the enemy. There is not, and will not be, a world war. The war is the rest of the world against Islam. And, the sooner Australia gets into it with America, the sooner ISIS is wiped out, the sooner the world will be a safer place. Mind you, I would rather team up with the Russians - who actually kill thugs - than an Obama US.

When ISIS is wiped out the CIA will just create, train and fund another group, they need a boogy man (organization, group) to justify the military industrial complex which props up there economy.

Also someone to test out new weapons on.

If you want some credibility, Crackcup, you should take care to get the basic facts right.

>>Our Defence Minister, Susan Ley, has just announced that...

Australia's Minister for Defence is the Hon. Marise Payne.

Sheesh. Is that too difficult?

I wholeheartedly apologize for my blunder in wrongly naming the Minister for Defence,.....as a matter of fact I am just watching Susan Ley on the National Press Club presentation!....however I am finding it hard to keep up with the names of the Ministers, who recently seem to be
changing nearly as fast as I change my underwear, so I forgive myself because I was in such a hurry to get this issue to print, as I am so very passionate about these particular issues that put our country at risk of vapourization.....(note the English spelling, not the US)

Further to my original post, I would like to say that there seems to be a lot of people out there living in Wally World, who simply cannot understand the fact that sniveling to the US will NOT keep us immune from harm.

The US has an endemic policy of "winning the conflict, be it psychological or physical" and you can forget about conflicts like the War with Germany and Japan. The new conflicts will be waged with weapons most horrible to contemplate, but be advised that the US has a policy of," we want it, and if we can`t have it, then nobody else will have it" In other words when the crunch comes it will be like the Cuban Missile Crisis, China (or Russia) will be expected to backdown, and if they don`t, then kiss your arse goodbye and watch for the mushroom clouds!

We are living in very dangerous times, much more dangerous than most people realize, and believe me when I say that it only takes a spark to light this conflagration.

Crackup,

The US does not have to go to the international court to decide that the Spratly islands are not the territorial property of China for two reasons:

1 The Spratlys were not islands before China reclaimed them, the international law on this is crystal clear. This area is essentially international waters. Otherwise every oil rig would give the owners territorial rights.
2 The "islands" are far closer to the Philippines or Vietnam than China, and they would have prior claim to the economic rights in the area.

Secondly, as roughly 40% of world trade goes through these waters, China illegally enforcing territorial rights threatens the entire Pacific rim.

The ignoring of China's claim by the US navy makes it impossible for China to enforce its claims on others.

Shadow, do you agree Margaret 'Bloody' Thatcher was a war criminal for invading the Falkland Islands, resulting in the slaughter of some 900 people.
I just love your legal opinions, you express them as if they came from the learned judge himself.

Paul,

I admire your courage, most people would be ashamed of posting such moronic drivel, but you barrel ahead, not letting your complete ignorance of a subject deter you from expressing your opinion.

As for my "learned opinions", you too can crawl out of your pit of ignorance with a little help from my friend Google, and if you don't know how, any 5yr old could help you.

Topics you can start with are:
1 Geneva convention and the definition of a war crime
2 Falklands war. wrt who invaded who.
3 If you feel up to big words, you can try some articles on maritime and refugee law of which you appear to be a complete stranger.

Our pandering to US foreign policy and UN agendas sicken me.
I wish we could be truly independent, since we have the best block of land on the planet to be an independent country.

I agree with the author that we are in very dangerous times.
ttbn seems fairly adamant that there will not be another World War, but I myself would not be willing to bet on that.
With the US with its back to the wall economically I think they are more dangerous right now than ever before.

Some people might think that with Americas ability to print endless money and buy its way out of its problems means that it is invincible but its not really the full story.

The only way the US can retain that 'invincibility' is to work to ensure its currency remains unchallenged.

Given that many nations wish to sell oil in currency other than US and China is soon to start selling its products in their own currency with the Asia Investment Bank I believe the end of the US is inevitable.

Which is one of the reasons for all these wars of conquest.

But the US cannot beat China or Russia in a conventional war.
So if the US wants to stubbornly dig its heels in and not go quietly into the night WE CAN EXPECT THAT A NUCLEAR WAR MAY ALSO BE INEVITABLE.

The US has become like "one of those close friends you had from childhood that has gone done the wrong path with drugs and alcohol and the best you can do for yourself is to no longer have anything to do with them, for your own good".

Margaret Thatcher a war criminal because she sent troops to defend British territory? Steve101 gets loopier with ever post. It would have been criminal of Thatcher not to protect Falklanders from the Argies, who have certain way about them.

Crackup,

You would know all about "Wally World". You are just plain anti-American, even at a time when the poor, Obama-blighted country has been dragged further to the left than the rest of the West. The real threat of "vaporisation" comes from Islam, China - even maniacal North Korea. But you couldn't possibly criticise them could you? They are not white and Christian.

You certainly appear to have cracked up.

Thanks Shadow, you have a Google Degree in googleomics and to think others wasted years studying law at university. They could have just as easily got a degree out of the 'Cornflakes' box like you have, so to speak. Gee, some people never learn.

'Geneva convention' I've got you on that one! I am an expert, I have watched every episode of 'Hogans Hero's' they are always talking about the GC, does that not make me an expert.

Still, you have not answered my Margaret 'Bloody' Thatcher question.

Armchair,

Nuclear war cannot be "may be inevitable". It is enevitable or not. I think not. Do you think that anyone is truly mad enought to fire a missile when they know that in same second they do, one will be coming back at them?

I don't understand your attitude to America. Thanks to Obama, America is now weak. No strong arm stuff; Obama simply loves Islam: he bends over backwards to show that America "is not at war with Islam"; he has put America trillions into debt; he relies on Hollywood, the media and ex- terrorists to bully the Right into submission (the Right are the ones who made American what it used to be - the things you and Crackpot object to).

So, what's the problem? The "bad" America has gone. It can't help poor countries anymore; it cannot win a war - it cannot even clean up rag-tag religious fanatics, after total failures against its dread enemy, communism, in Viet Nam, Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan; it can't protect its border with Mexico.

You should be pleased with the current America and its Left pro-Islam President who doesn't want to hurt anyone except his own troops who he won't let do their job properly.

Paul,

I have never claimed to be an expert, however, using google to access legal documents etc and then give an informed opinion it, makes my posts infinitely better than your rambling and ignorant drivel.

With respect to the brilliant and globally acclaimed Thatcher, if you aren't competent to use google, here are a few pointers:

1 Argentina in a blatant act of war invaded the sovereign territory of the British Falkland Islands.
2 Britain responded by retaking the islands as they were entitled to do so.
3 In doing so they killed about 650 Argentinian Military for a loss of about 250 of their own.
4 Only an idiot believes that killing enemy soldiers in a war is a war crime.

Crackcup says "instead of this ridiculous "Gung Ho" supporting a nation who appears to be intent on manipulating the start of another war of appeasement!"

A war of appeasement? Ya gotta laugh. Appeasement (in this context) means giving in to another power by basically giving them what they want. So now we have to fight a war to force China to allow us to give it what it wants? Struth what a dill.

To be fair to Crackcup, when the irrationally anti-US folk go into rant mode, its unreasonable to expect them to think logically.

" when anyone with half a brain knows that the US needs another war to solve their economic problems!"

The joke is too obvious.

So why do we and most of the western world continue to support the US even when they make less than perfect decisions as seems to be the default setting for this president?
Its because any world where a capitalist, liberal democracy isn't the pre-eminent power is a world less conducive to the freedom and prosperity we currently enjoy. I know the usual suspects will find that statement to be sacrilege but there you go.

ttbn:
Oh, Boo Hoo,.....so I don`t like the US Administration?

I don`t want myself or my family to be vapourized by the
actions of a maniacal, self appointed Sheriff of the world!

Get off your high horse about China wanting a war, give them
the benefit of there longevity. All they have to do is to wait,
and "the meek shall inherit the earth!" NB: I am not some sort
of religious crank, but use that terminology for its simple
fact!

I agree that Islam is going to be a problem, as it is already
creating havoc in many European countries, BUT who started all
this crap in the first place, .....the US and its "Coalition of
the willing", by bombing the crap out of Iraq, based upon an
outright lie, fabricated to gain the sympathy and support of
the like thinking leaders, leaders who would jump at the chance
of making a name for themselves, regardless of the long term
cost to their countries.

Enjoy your ride next time you go to Wally World,... that is of
course if it is still their, and the US hasn`t false flagged
it, and blown it to pieces to create another excuse to blow
their well-worn bugle!

Crack up, we could not defend ourselves if we tried.

That's why we need Americal.

Hey ttbn,
I looked at what I wrote after I posted it and thought to myself 'Yep thats technically incorrect, I hope nobody nitpicks'.
- I'm sure you understood what I meant but I admit the error.

"Do you think that anyone is truly mad enough to fire a missile when they know that in same second they do, one will be coming back at them?"

Yep, I do.
Under the right circumstances, I have little doubts.

All it takes is a small confrontation or false flag to cause serious animosity between sides, then a bit of argy-bargy from both sides vying for a better negotiating position turns - bad to become an all out conflict after which one side is pushed past where their own line in the sand is and the gloves come off.

- But you have every right to hold an alternative view if that's what you believe, and I like to hear all the differing opinions.

Also, I'd like to think I'm wrong in this case because I don't want a nuclear war.
- The man-made global warming people might really have a genuine argument then.

My attitude to America?

Basically I just don't like the way they run their country, and honestly it wouldn't really be any of our business how they run their country, if the way they did didn't affect us. ( I believe others have the right to live however they choose so long as it doesnt affect me in an adverse manner - and on some level I extend that way of thinking to countries)

But the US is like the head of the family in some ways.
Maybe the fault is our our politicians pandering to them.
(I hate this gang mentality)

Is this 'head of the family' a responsible moral adult?
No, IMO they are more like a drunken, violent, greedy, short-sighted, egotisical, mentally unstable, 'head of the family' that is just as likely to engage in domestic violence (its own people) as much as it harms other people (other countries).

I agree with the points you made but I'd argue that the 'Bad America' is not gone at all.

How is the bad America gone when you now have a US president who starts wars without congressional approval and in breach of international law and also holds a policy of state sponsored terror for regime chance?

Is this a 'head of the family' you would call a responsible moral adult?
That you would really defend?
If so please explain.

Mhaze,
"So why do we and most of the western world continue to support the US even when they make less than perfect decisions as seems to be the default setting for this president?
Its because any world where a capitalist, liberal democracy isn't the pre-eminent power is a world less conducive to the freedom and prosperity we currently enjoy. I know the usual suspects will find that statement to be sacrilege but there you go."

If you are saying that we stand alongside the US because its the lesser evil, then I accept your line of reasoning, but I will never allow myself into foolishly thinking something is 'inherently good' when its real measure by all standards is that its only just the lesser evil or best choice.

I could give you a feces sandwich cut into halves, and just because you chose the half which had the least amount of crap smeared on it doesn't make it a good thing.

AC I don't believe the millions of poor and exploited US citizens "choose" to live the way they do, but are controlled by a rampant industrial/military complex that is the United States.

"Only an idiot believes that killing enemy soldiers in a war is a war crime." Only and idiot would make such a statement.

“War crimes” include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict and in conflicts "not of an international character" listed in the Rome Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale. These prohibited acts include:

murder;
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population;
intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historical monuments or hospitals;
pillaging;
rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy or any other form of sexual violence;
conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities."

Shadow, the evidence shows the sinking of the General Belgrano by Britain with the loss of 321 of its crew was a war crime sanchanced by none other than Margaret 'Bloody' Thatcher.

Armchair,

OK. But I think you should try to relax a little. As for America, well, I'm sure many of the Yanks don't like the way their country is run either. I'm not really keen on the way Australia is run. But as far as America's effect on Australia - that has a lot to do with how much Australia allows it to have effects on us. Then, there's the little matter of defence; we rely heavily on America for that. We probably don't have a sea-worthy vessel to send to cock a snoot at China in the South China Sea as America has done. About 70% of our exports go that way, and what could we do about the way China is carrying on. Even with Obama, America is still a good ally.

China has never shown the slightest inclination that it poses a threat to Australia. Granted, throughout much of the 'Cold War' period a fear of the Asian yellow penal was continually fostered on the Australian populace.

Paul,

If I were going to attack something or someone, I wouldn't make it known beforehand either.

Australia is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. It cannot rely on America to protect it under the ANZUS agreement and it cannot prevent China from colonising it through mass migration of Chinese nationals and total control over its natural resources and major industries.

The British took possession of Australia from the aborigines by force. Now the Chinese are taking possession of Australia from Britain's descendants by free trade trickery. What Australia's politicians need to be working out is how to manage a country having a Chinese majority population and where the major decisions are made in Beijing. We just have to accept that we are now part of China.

Paul,

I'm puzzled by your ravings. First you start with a standard marxist rant about the US, then you give a list of war crimes, none of which apply to the sinking of the Belgrano, then accuse MT of war crimes in the sinking of a Military ship at a point of conflict. I would suggest less whisky in your morning coffee.

The fact that China went to war with the west in Korea, and is now trying to enforce its tenuous territorial claims over more legitimate claimants by militarizing an area of extreme importance to the world is a threat.

Finally, as these Chinese military installations are built on piles in the sand which would liquify with a well placed bunker buster. So the island runways could be turned into scrap with one well placed bomb or missile.

If indeed we cannot trust America to save us from China, then we should strengthen our strategic alliance with India.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Life under Chinese domination might not be all that bad.

Anyway I don't think we have a choice. By 2050 the majority population of Australia will be Chinese and the economy will be run from Beijing. And there will be enough Chinese voters in Australia to elect Chinese politicians who are pro-Beijing to Canberra.

Everyone just has to come to grips with the fact that Anglo-Australia is dead and the age of Sino-Australia is here to stay.

Crackpot,

You are "not some sort of religious crank", you claim. What sort of crank are you then, to have such an eye-popping fear of life. How does "there" (sic) longevity make the Chinese worthy of special consideration? The have been very nasty - even to their own - for a couple of millenia.

What's the "simple fact" you threw into the ring? The "meek" Chinese are going to inherit the earth? I don't think God or whoever got that one into the Bible had the Chinese in mind when they made that very dubious statement. The 'meek' don't seem to do very well at all. The Chinese, on the other hand ....

And the U.S. is reponsible for the havoc created in Europe because it bombed Iraq? Based on an "outright lie" no less! What was the lie? Not the old chestnut about no WMD's? The WMD's that people more reliable than you observed crossing the Iraqi border before the Americans arrived? And here's silly old me thinking that it was the sworn duty of Islam to rule the world. That lying Koran, eh! It was the Yanks all along! That's going to cause a lot of embarrassment for the mullahs.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

2050? I hope I'm not around by then anyway and never have to see that day.

Not that I care about the "Anglo" culture, which isn't my own anyway, but I abhor the idea of living under a totalitarian regime which is known for oppressing religion - especially after what they have done to Tibet and the Falun Gong.

My hope though is that Chinese ethnicity need not translate into allegiance to Beijing. Are there not Chinese people who are here specifically in order to enjoy relative freedom?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I believe that there will be an intense desire among the majority Chinese population of Australia in 2050 to be part of a greater Chinese pan-nationalism that is worldwide.

For example, look at how popular Chinese New Years are around the world. It's an occasion for the Chinese diaspora to reconnect and express their allegiance to lineages that have always been the paste of Chinese society.

Personally, I don't think people will have an opportunity to opt out of living under Chinese rule unless they emigrate from Australia. I think people will just adopt Chinese practices and just move on with their lives. They'll just have to like it or lump it.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

I already left a place which I found unacceptably oppressive and at the time chose Australia, so if what you are saying is true then I guess I will need to emigrate again, but this time due to age it's likely to be to another and better world altogether.

Though you did not comment about the Indian option to counter the Chinese.

That's because the Chinese will greatly outnumber the Indians in Australia.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

India is also a nuclear country. In the absence of America, we could at least help them by supplying them more uranium without restrictions, as well as allow and encourage them to have nuclear bases in Australia. We should also develop biological weapons together to deter the Chinese.

Otherwise, have you heard about Massada? If what you write is true then perhaps we should all make a suicide pact and die free?

Otherwise, why should all of us who are not willing to live under Chinese tyranny, including our Chinese brothers and sisters who fled that place and hate the regime, concentrate on any corner of Australia and from there give them a real fight?

Armchair,

Your $hit sandwich ANALogy :) is far from the mark. It insinuates that the US is just like all the other potential world leaders but merely slightly better at the edges. But that gets it very wrong.

I'd never argue that the US is anywhere close to perfect. But in terms of world super-powers, not just now, but throughout history, the US is the most benign of leaders. The least imperialistic, the most liberal, the most democratic. It seeks advantage for itself by raising everyone else up not be holding everyone else down.

A few examples.

The US isn't imperialistic. Indeed it is the opposite, often to its detriment. When Caesar went into Gaul no-one fretted about exit strategies. The various Khans weren't concerned to withdraw back to the Mongolian homeland. The Brits didn't start worryng about how to get out of India the moment Clive arrived. Yet the US, whether it goes in Afghanistan or Iraq or Grenada, is immediately looking to how it can leave and leave the inhabitants better than they were. They don't always succeed but its a very different mindset.

The US, on three occasions in the past century, has been called on to defend the freedom of the nations of the world. Any other power would have used their victories to either enhance their own power or occupied the defeated states to ensure hey don't rise again. Rome, having defeated Carthage, destroyed the peoples and permanently occupied the land. The US, having defeated the Soviets, helped them to establish a democracy (or sorts) and threw money at their ailing economy.

The US is the great defender of human rights world-wide. Indeed the very notion that there are universal rights which the international community should pursue, is something that is peculiar in human history to that period of dominance by the Anglosphere. When Xerxes invaded Hellas, he didn't come to discuss the plight of the Helots!

So yes the US is far from perfect. But if you think that the next world power will be as benign, you really just don't understand human history.

"Life under Chinese domination might not be all that bad."

I shudder at the level of ignorance or sheer willful misreading of history that would allow anyone to think such a thing. A China freed of the constraints of the US hegemony would be a horror for mankind. They would enforce their values with a ruthlessness not seen since the marauding Mongols. The 'party', unrestrained and victorious would eliminate democracy and freedom wherever it placed its hand.

I think the problem is that people are so unaware of their history, so devoid of knowledge about how fragile and precarious our freedom is, how hard-won it was, assume that it will always be there and those nice Chinese totalitarians wouldn't even think about overturning what they consider to be an aberration in the march of history.

A picture tells a thousand words:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/photo/20090602-Lens-Behind-Tianamen/20090603-tank-cole-1000px.jpg

Dear Yuyutsu,

Don't get upset at me because you don't like the idea of a Sino-Australia. I'm not the blame for China deliberately populating Australia with its nationals and taking control of the country's natural resources and major industries. It's the politicians and business leaders of Australia who are letting it happen.

Personally, I think the Anzacs who gave their all to create a nation would be turning in their graves if they knew how Australia's politicians and business leaders have sold out to the Chinese in the pursuit of tax revenues and corporate profits.

All I'm saying is that a Sino-Australia is inevitable. You only have to look at the current demographic of Sydney to see that. The future political-economy of Australia will be controlled by China and the major decisions will be made in Beijing. Everyone is just going to have to accept it or get out.

ttbn:
Ah! I see the rampant hysteria leaking from your literary
meanderings!

I feel like running straight out and enlisting in Uncle
Sam`s Army!

I think that you would believe anything the Yank lovers
tell you, when your insinuation that there WERE "Weapons
of Mass Destruction" which triggered the invasion of Iraq!

Fortunately I was not there to witness the movement of
these mystical Weapons crossing the Iraqi border " before
the Americans arrived?"

Just to add reinforcement to your misguided theory, ....it
was only yesterday that Tony Blair admitted publicly that
the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was a LIE!....but maybe he
was telling "porkies" too?

The leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" countries might
be stupid, but they are NOT that stupid that they don`t get
their Intelligence Services to check the authenticity of the
information on which they act to take them to war.

With this in mind, obviously the subject leaders ignored the
truth of the matter, and disregarding the truth, they then
acquiesced to the demands of the U.S. and committed their
troops to what was an "illegal war" not sanctioned by the
U.N. at the time, (which proves who is really running the
U.N.)

Another classic example of the "good ole boys" was the prison
compound at Guantanamo Bay. How many innocent prisoners were
incarcerated, tortured and maybe murdered, during its life,
breaking nearly every article of the Geneva Convention.
The last prisoner was finally released yesterday after
serving 13 years, and was never found guilty of any "offence"
* and before you "sic" offence, ....I use English spelling or
try to, as I refuse to be converted to Amerispeak, unlike the
many who just can`t wait to become Yanks!
I still use "got" and not "gotten", the only acceptable use
of "gotten" in the English language is "ill gotten gains"

Dear mhaze,

I understand where you're coming from but Australia's politicians and business leaders don't share your concerns. They are active agents in letting China populate Australia with its nationals at such a rate that Chinese will very shortly be the principal group in Australia and the better part of Australia's natural resources and major industries will be in the hands of Chinese corporations.

It's too late to turn back the clock and the floodgates have now been opened. We are about to see an unprecedented mass migration of Chinese nationals to Australia and the planting of Chinese companies into Australia. I think within the next five to ten years 50% of all construction and manufacture in Australia will be carried out by Chinese companies and that 50% of all jobs will be held by Chinese workers.

There's no use fighting it. The die has been cast by Australia's politicians and business leaders. People are just going to have to get used to the fact that they will soon be a part of a Greater China. The only alternative - for those who don't like that idea - is to leave the country. I'm quite sure China will help people if that's what they decide to do.

Crackpot,

I hope that you haven't been the way you are for all your 77 years, and that your situation is just second childhood.

Mr Opinion,

Sometimes, despite the name of this site, its also good to be Mr Fact.

eg, "Chinese will very shortly be the principal group in Australia"

Fact: the percentage of the population born in China is 1.9% up from 1.0% 10 years ago. This is a slower growth rate than many other nationalities. Indians went from 0.7% to 1.7%. In terms of ethnicity ie people born of overseas parentage, 4.3% say they are Chinese, way behind peoples like the English, Scots, Irish, Italians Germans etc.

Of the Australian population, 447,000 people were born in China. Of those at least half are students and the like who are not likely to become citizens or permanent residents.

So, while you might fret about the Chinese take-over, the facts are rather different. At the current rate, it'll take about 500 years to get to your postulated 50%. Although I intend to be around then, I'll start worrying in 2 to 3 hundred years time!

Now if you want something to really worry about, the Nepalese population increased by 27% in the last 10 years. It won't be long before we're all eating Dal bhat.

"Just to add reinforcement to your misguided theory, ....it
was only yesterday that Tony Blair admitted publicly that
the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was a LIE!....but maybe he
was telling "porkies" too?"

I've gotta call you out that one Crackcup. He said that there were no WMD's and he said he was sorry for that. But nowhere did he say that he or anyone else lied about it. The intelligence was (probably) wrong but that doesn't mean he lied. He just relied to much on data that turned out to be less than completely accurate.

Dear mhaze,

Thanks for the statistics but I find these figures hard to digest.

Sydney alone has over a million people who are designated Chinese by nationality per se. That makes 5% of the country's population by itself. Then you've got the other major cities and all those naturalised people who count themselves as Chinese by descent and culture.

Take a walk around the CBD of Sydney and you'll notice that 2 in 3 persons are Chinese; then take a walk around some of the major suburban centres like Hurstville and Chatswood and you'll notice that it's almost 9 in 10 are Chinese. And when you travel on public transport virtually anywhere in greater Sydney half the passengers are Chinese.

I suggest you throw your figures in the trash bin and get out into the real world and let your eyes do the counting.

PS I'm guessing by your comments that you don't live in Sydney and probably reside in one of those country towns where the only Chinese you ever see are the ones running a local restaurant.

Mr Opinion,

I got my figures from various locations but primarily from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features32013-14?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2013-14&num=&view=

Now I do whole-heartedly accept that the ABS got their figures by doing extensive surveys, examining census data and accessing immigration records. Clearly those methods are nowhere near as accurate or scientifically based as taking a stroll around the city or catching a train. But I'm sure the ABS is working toward adopting your much more convincing methodology. Sheesh.

"Sydney alone has over a million people who are designated Chinese by nationality per se."

There are two types of statistics. Those you look up and those you make-up. I pretty sure your's are of the later variety. But you can prove me wrong by providing a reference to the basis of this unbelievable number.

Dear mhaze,

Thanks for the figures. Unfortunately, these figures do not correspond with what one sees around the streets and suburbs of Sydney. According to your figures we should expect to see 1 person in every 50 is Chinese in Sydney. Yet when I walk around Sydney it looks to me like the figure is closer to 2 in 3; and when I walk around Chatswood it looks to me like the figure is about 9 in 10.

So what's going on? Either I'm going blind or I can't count.

If you're correct that only 1 in 50 people in Sydney is Chinese then I'm at loss to explain why I keep seeing so many Chinese in Sydney. Admit it, you don't live in Sydney, do you?

Is there anyone reading this who actually lives in Sydney? What's your opinion? From your observations, do you think mhaze is correct in claiming that only 1 person in 50 in Sydney is Chinese?

My final comment would be that China itself by claiming territorial rights right up to the 12Nm borders of others countries near the Spratly's and firing on their citizens, China is risking considerable collapse of the relations it had previously spent $bns developing.

Those countries incl

Japan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. All of whom have asked the US to intervene.

With China's economy looking to slip into recession, the last thing china needs is to be surrounded by hostile neighbors.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Do you see any parallels between China's predatory expansion into southeast Asia and that of Japan's in the years leading up to World War 2?

PS What do you think of mhaze's claim that only about 1 person in 50 in Sydney is Chinese?

Too much US sycophantic nonsense on this thread to comment on it all, Just this bit will have to do.

"I'd never argue that the US is anywhere close to perfect. But in terms of world super-powers, not just now, but throughout history, the US is the most benign of leaders. The least imperialistic, the most liberal, the most democratic. It seeks advantage for itself by raising everyone else up not be holding everyone else down."
ROFLMAO

The US has since WWII followed a policy of Interventionism world wide. Firstly to contain the threat of communism, and later as a support to its military/industrial complex. The US no longer maintains the pretense that its military interventionism is, and has been, motivated by some abstract notions of support for freedom and democracy for the oppressed, When it fact it has been a leading oppressor on a world scale, spectacularly failing to install freedom and democracy to any of the oppressed it has rushed to support. Now the US freely admits it can and will intervene militarily anywhere, and against anyone, it perceives as a threat to "American interests" and those American interests are identical to the interests of the US military/industrial complex.

"In January 1961, US President Dwight D Eisenhower used his farewell address to warn the nation of what he viewed as one of its greatest threats: the military-industrial complex composed of military contractors and lobbyists perpetuating war." Eisenhower was right.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/big-money-behind-war-military-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

Dear Mr. Opinion,

The fact that people were born in China or retain cultural contacts does not imply that they support the Chinese regime, especially if they were born and educated in Australia; or if they immigrated to Australia in order to escape political/religious oppression.

As for the statistics, it may well be that Chinese love the CBD and also like concentrating in certain suburbs. It's also possible that they love strolling in the streets while others prefer to stay at home or drive cars.

Regardless, if this problem is endemic to Sydney then there is no need to flee Australia - only to move to another state and vote to secede from the commonwealth.

I agree with Mhaze that if the Chinese regime could have its way then they wouldn't allow you and me to live our lives as normal. Why would they? Instead, like the Romans before them, they would throw and lock us inside some gold-mine and will only give us a glass of water in exchange for a certain amount of gold.

What will you personally do when they come?

I hope to be resting peacefully in my grave by then, having died in good age of natural causes.

I see the far left whingers are still muttering about the US imperialism, forgetting of course that the only country aggressively trying to expand its dominion at the expense of its neighbors is China. The sailing of a navy ship through these waters without China's permission was a simple enforcement of the legal right of navigation through these waters.

While Paul is correct in that the US would struggle with a land invasion of China, this would be a most naval/ air encounter, where the US navy and air force are orders of magnitude more powerful, and where the local countries are far more likely to support the US than China.

Dear Yuyutsu

From your comments I get the impression that you and mhaze do not live in Sydney. In fact I doubt if you have ever even seen the place.

Come and spend some time here making the same observations that I and other Sydney people make every day and you will soon change your opinion.

Dear Shadow Minister,

So what do you think the outcome will be?

Do you think the US is trying to contain China or just showing that it is not about to return to isolationism?

Do you think that the US will come to Australia's assistance if China moves to extend its economic control of Australia to political control?

Mr Opinion,

To refer to your earlier question, about 3% of the population of Sydney was born in China, with 6.5% ethnically Chinese with higher concentrations of 27% in areas such as Chatswood. However, my experience of these citizens is that they would strongly prefer Australia not be become a satellite of Red China.

I believe that the renewed sense of nationalism in China has led it to believe that it can achieve its claim of territorial ownership of the Spratly's in spite of the clear contravention of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that China has ratified. (And the tribunal in the Hague based on this that China is boycotting), and is a gamble that rest of the world with eventually accede, and that the damage to its relations with its neighbors can be repaired in time.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/130289/china-faces-mounting-intl-pressure-over-maritime-claims

The feeble response of Obama to date has reinforced its belief that it can pull this off, until of course the US navy sailed a warship straight though its claimed territory without permission and indicates that it intends to do so continually.

This puts China in an invidious position of either doing nothing and tacitly acknowledging the right of others over the area, or using its military to enforce compliance on the US ship, which with a US carrier group over the horizon would be a very "courageous" move.

Hi Shadow Minister

I still find your stats low vis-a-vis what my eyes tell me when I travel around Sydney.

And I know from other stats that the Chinese population of Chatswood is much higher than the 27% you cite. My stats say that in 2011 Chinese accounted for 37% of the population of Chatswood. I would say it has increased substantially in the last 4-5 years and I would now expect to find that the Chinese community probably now represent at least 50% of the population. And this can be confirmed by observation.

You did not answer my questions concerning China's advances into SE Asia and the consequences for Australia. Can you give answers to my questions?

Mr Opinion,

My Stats were for Sydney from the 2012 census. And while the figures for Chatswood may well be >30% now, the outer suburbs have very few. But as I don't really care, I don't take an over arching interest in this.

Similarly, given the decline of the Chinese economy, its rapidly aging population, and declining birth rate, I see China's power plateauing. As for its attempt to extent political control over Aus, given that > 500m people stand between Aus and China, I think that China would be way over extending itself and the US would intervene long before.

Hi Shadow Minister,

I don't think you can rely on the US stepping in to protect Australia. It has no obligation to do so under the ANZUS treaty. It is not like NATO where each member must protect any other member if it is attacked.

I don't believe SE Asia provides a buffer to a Chinese attack against Australia. Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia have no love for Australia and I think they won't stand in the way of China.

Anyway, I don't think China will consider military action against Australia until it is satisfied that it is sure that it will be an easy takeover. This won't be until it is sure that it is in control of Australia's economic infrastructure and that it will find Australia has a complacent citizenry that is made up mainly of Chinese (I doubt very much that the Chinese in Australia will be willing to resist their fellow Chinese from the ancestral homeland just to protect Australia.) The new free trade agreement will now give China an opportunity to achieve these ends.

Mr O,

"Come and spend some time here making the same observations that I and other Sydney people make every day and you will soon change your opinion."

It doesn't matter whether I live in Sydney, Perth or Upper Kumbukta West, my opinion won't change. I'm not basing my opinion on a stroll around Chinatown. I'm basing it on actual data from the ABS. I don't have the words to explain how spectacularly bonkers it is to dispute ABS figures based on personal, jaundiced observation. OMG !

If the number of Chinese in Australia is so high, then surely some of them are reading this thread now - perhaps they can comment about their attitude to the prospects of being subjected to the Chinese regime here in Australia?

Dear mhaze,

The whole of Sydney is now Chinatown. You should really come here and have a look for yourself. Believe me, if you do you will start questioning those ABS stats yourself. I should take some photos of today's typical street scenes around Sydney and post them on this site for you to see.

ttbn:

Typical U.S. Administration response from you, when faced with

the truth of any situation, and no sensible opposition, simply

ridicule the messenger!

Paul1405,

I'm sure adolescent acronyms ("ROFLMAO") are considered the height of effective rebuttal in some quarters.

Churchill is reported to have said, after being voted out of power in '45, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

If you were to acquaint yourself with some history you might start to see the US in the same way - the most imperialistic, interventionist, oppressive of superpowers except for all the others that have ever existed and all those that might soon exist.

To say things like "When it fact it has been a leading oppressor on a world scale" just shows a complete lack of understanding of the last century. For example, when, at the close of WWII Europe was divided between Soviet and US spheres of influence, the US actively created democracies throughout, threw money at the devastated nations through the Marshall Plan and allowed those in its sphere to operate with complete independence. The Soviets by contrast, forced totalitarian rule on its conquered territories, stripped places like Germany and Czechoslovakia of much industrial wherewithal, and enforced strict compliance with the rule of Moscow. Where is the US equivalent of Hungary '56 and the Czechoslovakia '68?

You might also ponder what happens when the US decides to abdicate its world policeman role - Tibet, Darfur, Rwanda.

Yes the US is very concerned to protect its interests. But is methods for doing so are the most benign that can be imagined and that the world has seen from any superpower, ever. In the wide sense, its interests are our interests - the maintenance of democracy and liberal capitalism.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't think the Chinese in Australia give two hoots about the outcome. They'll be protected either way and allowed to pursue their only interest in life - making money. For them it's a win-win situation.

Also, I would be interested to find out how many of the Chinese in Australia have been members of the Chinese Communist Party. Which also begs the question if the Chinese Communist Party has been assisting its nationals with migration and the finances to purchase property and businesses in Australia.

mhaze, given my life's experience I found "ROFLMAO" a worthy response to utter rubbish which in no way relates to the reality of post WWII American meddling in world affairs. I did follow the "ROFLMAO" with my view of America's post war foreign policy, which has very much been an interventionist policy, and the reason behind it, support for its military/industrial complex. A total turn around from an American inter war isolationist policy. The finger pointing argument that says "I'm bad, but he was worse!" is a frivolous argument of no value, meaningless in today's context. If I accept America is the least imperialistic, the most liberal, the most democratic compared to the British, French , Spanish, the Romans and all the other imperial powers that have existed, so what.
The world event in my lifetime which very much has shaped my option of the US, was the Vietnam War. A grubby imperialistic war that gave the "big lie" to American pretenses of championing the rights of the oppressed, the deaths of probably 1,500,000 plus people and the subsequent telling of the story of Vietnam is testimony to what I say is true. In the majority of instances, American intervention has resulted in an escalation of regional conflicts, rather that having a pacifying effect, this is self evident in the Middle East at the moment, as it is in Afghanistan, on numerous occasions in Central America, and was in Vietnam. in my view their best result has been Korea where they managed to achieve an uneasy peace, with the resultant creation of a sycophantic state in the shape of South Korea, and a festering sore called North Korea. Well done U.S.A!

Crackpot,

Truth? You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the backside; now, you are digging yourself a hole you don't need my help with.

mhaze,

Non-Imperialist Most Benign Of Leaders

http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

And How They Do It

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/washingtons-fifth-columns-inside-russia-and-china

This is what you are defending?
Really?

Crackcup wrote 28 October 2015 6:55:54 AM: '... Our Defence Minister, ... has just announced that "we will support the US unequivocally" ...'. Sorry, but I could not find a record of any Australian defence minister saying this. When and where did they say it?

Australia has not sent any surface warships to the Spratly Islands. In fact two Australian warships are currently on a goodwill mission to China.

I don't agree with your assertion that "In war nobody wins, but a lot of people die...". The citizens of nations which fail to defend their citizens adequately are at risk of direct aggression and threats of aggression.

I suggest Australia can, and should, maintain friendly relations with China, while maintaining its military alliance with the USA.

ps: Curiously, Australian technology may be used on both sides of the South China Sea dispute. Australia is a world leader in the design of high speed multi-hull ferries and these have been adapted by the USA and China for warships. The Independence Class Littoral Combat Ships of the United States Navy are derived from a trimaran ferry by West Australian company Austal. The Houbei class missile boats of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy are based on a commercial catamaran ferry from AMD Marine Consulting Pty Ltd of Sydney.

Mr Opinion,

Not all people of oriental ethnicity in Chatswood are foreign. Of those who are, not all are Chinese. And of those who are Chinese, not all if them are Mainland Chinese.

China has no desire to invade Australia. The places that could be under threat of a Chinese invasion are those that China has a historical claim to (however tenuous).

Dear Aidan,

If something looks like a duck, wobbles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

The Chinese are an international community - diaspora - with strong ties to their ancestral homeland. This is the symbolic meaning of the Chinese New Year. It's all about being connected to one's ancestral roots.

Your argument inferring that a Chinese Australian is not Chinese makes as much sense as saying an Australian Aboriginal is not an Aboriginal.

Paul1405/Armchair,

Let me try and explain it to you one more time.
My starting point is that there always will be at least one superpower in existence. There always has been and always will be. A power which orders the international system to suit their world-view and to advantage their aims. Just as Rome ordered their world to suit their perceived advantage and values, the US seeks to order the world to its advantage. Every superpower in the past has done so. Its their methods that matter.

Now you might yearn for some Disneyfied world where the hegemon is so benign that it doesn't involve itself at all in the affairs of others or seek to order the global system to its advantage. But in the real world of realpolitik that's just not going to happen.

So...
given that we are always going to have some sort of global power(s) who dictate to lesser states, my view is that US is the least oppressive of the current candidates and the least oppressive of all the preceding examples.

For Australia, given that we are always going to be subordinate to whatever power is the then hegemon, we are best placed if that hegemon shares our values of liberal democracy, individual freedom, rule of law etc. And when that power is required to get down and dirty to defend the global system as in Vietnam or Korea or Europe, we need to be supporting them because that system advantages us also.

Just stamping your feet and saying the US is bad because of this or that is juvenile. Powers are bad in comparison to others. And by comparison with those others, the US is prefered.

Some people look at the Mona Lisa and see the smile. Others see the cracks in the paint.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Ducks are more likely to waddle than wobble.

The Scots are an international community - diaspora - with strong ties to their ancestral homeland. Many people, including myself, have Scottish ancestry and look Scottish despite not being born in Scotland.

It doesn't mean we want Scotland to control Australia!

"Your argument inferring that a Chinese Australian is not Chinese makes as much sense as saying an Australian Aboriginal is not an Aboriginal"
What about Aboriginal Australians with Chinese Ancestry (such as Cathy Freeman)? Do you deny they're Aboriginal? Do you regard them as Chinese?

Dear Aidan,

I thought a waddle was a wobble. Or is that the other way around?

What is the linchpin in the Scottish diaspora? Is it the Queen? Edinburgh Castle? The Loch Ness monster?

I think Cathy Freeman would regard herself as an Aboriginal.

mhaze, thanks for the history lesson, don't disagree with it. To simply justify today's reality by reference to that of the past is meaningless. We cannot change the past, but we can influence the future. To simply give up and say "Well, there is not much we can do about the present situation so just accept it!" That is not my line, I believe, regardless of the odds we need to do our up most to bring peace and equality to the world.
No one is saying the US is totally bad, totally wrong, but to simply accept all, and fall in behind is not my way of thinking. Call it idealism if you want, but there can be a better world tomorrow if all of goodwill work to achieve that end.

Paul,

I struggle to find any logic in your posts.

Here we have a major power attempting to claim territorial rights over an area that is clearly within the economic zones of other countries, based purely on their military might, whereas the US, who has nothing to gain, is taking action to demonstrate to the world that China's claims are invalid. This is also a common action taken to deflate unreasonable attempts to control waterways.

Yet we have the left whingers howling that the US is being provocative, while ignoring the provocative action by China in building Military bases in the disputed area and shooting at the fishermen of other nations.

Shadow Minister,
How exactly are China's claims invalid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands

You say the US has nothing to gain. (How selfless of them - Yeah right)
Obviously you haven't clued on to how America works yet.
It doesn't lift any nation on the planet up (except Israel) despite all its talk about bringing democracy and human rights.
Name one.
It keep its position in the world by undermining anyone else that rises up which is exactly what it is trying to do here.

Hi Shadow,

"I struggle to find any logic in your posts" I can't help it if you are illogical, you will just have to struggle on the best you can.

One of the great myths of modern times is the US claim that it is acting as 'The Worlds Policeman' that might have some justification if the policeman was not also making the laws as well.

The U.S. spends more on militarism than the next 8 largest militaries combined. It's not just a great military power, it has a near monopoly on military power. It is not for any idealistic motives about bring freedom and democracy to the world, it is about feeding that military-industrial complex, and it is well fed, about $640US billion p/a.

Shadow, read this opinion piece by Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, on the subject of the US military-industrial complex then go on about China. Not that i am out to defend the actions of the Chinese, I don't.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/big-money-behind-war-military-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

Armchair Critic,

With all due respect I have offered several reasons why China's claim to the Spratlys is invalid, so I will give you the opportunity to explain why they have a claim, given:

China had no claim prior to the 1940s,
The islands are hundreds of miles from any recognized Chinese territory yet well within the economic zones of 5 neighboring countries
The maritime treaty to which China is a signatory, does not recognize sub surface and occasionally exposed island as legitimate territory.

Paul,

I see English is not your strong point, but your logic is completely lacking. Your statement in your last post that you don't support the Chinese actions is the first glimmer in 13 pages of this thread that you don't support China's annexation by force of neighbor's territory, yet still go banging away at the US whose only crime was to stand up for the little guys against a bully.

Shadow me olde sparing partner. I am simply keeping on topic 'Why do we have to keep snivelling to the US'. If the top was how to make 'Hot Dogs' I wouldn't be giving you a recipe for 'Chow Mein'. I see English comprehension is not your strong point.

I suspect as usual you have no answer to my logical arguments about the US, so therefore you have to deflect the discussion onto an entirely different subject "China up to no good".

Your assertion that the only crime of the US is to stand up for the little guy against the bully, is nonsense, the US is the bully. It goes around bulling one nation after another from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and all those in between.

Please explain why the USA has to spend $640US billion a year on militarism, more than the combined total of the next 8 largest spenders. China is second on about $200US billion. Most nations, including Australia, keep their war expenditure below about 1.5% of GDP, China is a little low at 1.2%. The US is more than 3% of GDP. Only excessively out done by the warmongers like Israel 7%, Saudi Arabia 10% ( A US war tax on them to protect US oil in the Middle East),

Paul,

I wonder why you continuously post crap without checking your facts. The topic extends far more than the title. The topic was specifically about the US's deliberate violation of the Chinese territorial claims.

What fascinates me is the Greens' obsequious pandering politically to China in the fact of China's rank imperialism yet the Greens' rank hypocrisy in opposing the FTA.

The US has by far the strongest military, and US hegemony has given the world a largely peaceful 7 decades of peace and unprecedented growth. The rules it tries to enforce are not the ones it makes up. E.g. the International Maritime agreement has been signed by every major sea faring nation including China, which is the exactly what China is violating with its imperial claims.

Shadow, Yours and other sycophants unquestioned admiration of all things American is ridiculous in the extreme. Starting with Menzies and extending to all other Liberal regimes in Australia, and may I add most Labor administrations as well, with the notable acceptation of the Whitlam government.

Led into one war after another, from Korea to Syria, Australia has to its eternal shame followed blindly the US demands of participation. Now you want to make a big deal about China, whilst continually excusing American aggression world wide.

The absurd hypocrisy of you saying "Greens' obsequious pandering politically to China in the fact of China's rank imperialism" Nothing could be further from the truth. Not one Australian has died as a consequence of Chinese demands (of which there have been none) for Australia's participation in imperialists wars, unlike the United States which led us into Korea and then Vietnam where hundreds of Australians died in the name of US aggression. Please post your justification for the Australian deaths in those wars, it will make interesting reading.

Paul,

In this thread your rabid rejection of everything American and obsequious fawning to China is clouding your judgement. That in this instance, China is attempting illegally to seize by force the territorial rights of smaller nations, and the US is thwarting the bully, must really do your head in.

The Korean war is a prime example of where China and Russia backed North Korea to attack South Korea, and where the democratic world stopped them.

So, that is your take on the Korean War, what about the Vietnam War? Will your explanation be just as flaky.
No doubt you were one of the useful idiots of the world who swallowed George W Bush's BS he and his flunkies Powell, Rice, Rumsfield etc feed you about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The Americans can always rely on a hard right conservative Aussie like yourself to fall for the BS hook, line and sinker!

Paul said; "Not that I am out to defend the actions of the Chinese, I don't."

Please explain why the US needs to spend $640US billion, annually, more than the next 8 nations combined, on militarism. You have no explanation other than to feed its aggressive military-industrial complex!

Paul,

Given that you still haven't substantiated your claim of war crimes in the Falklands war, perhaps you can do so and give us your take on the Korean war? I wait in breathless anticipation.

Secondly, I never supported the war on Iraq nor believed that there were WMDs of sufficient quantity of quality to warrant an invasion. However, given the barbarity of Saddam to his people and the millions killed in the Iran Iraq war, I had little sympathy for Saddam and his cronies.

As for the US military strength, for any one familiar with history would remember the US's policy of isolation which was shattered at Pearl Harbour, followed by WW2, the Korean war, the cold war, etc which were all direct threats.

No mention of the Vietnam War, a rather inconvenience event, giving the lie to American imperialism. Pity John Howard and the other useful idiots of the Liberal Party didn't have your foresight at the time, or given the stupidity of those that fell for the Bush BS hook, line and sinker are you simply revising your personal history, we'll never know.

What about an explanation why the US spends $640US billion on militarism annual, more than the next 8 combined. Any thoughts on that?
I didn't personally experience the Korean War of 60 years ago. I do know that the crazy Yank General Macarthur wanted to nuk innocent people in North Korea and kill millions. Then he wanted to be president of the United States, how fitting.

Paul,

Still no mention of the Falklands, Korean, or Afghan wars? After all the hype you retreated in humiliation.

After WW2 Vietnam was split into North and South Vietnam as a French Protectorate. North then decided to "liberate" South Vietnam by sending in guerrilla fighters, until the French finally asked the US for help, which eventually became a proxy war for the US and USSR, at the end of which North Vietnam subjugated South Vietnam bringing decades of poverty.

With regards the US, did you bother to read my last post?

Notably, the US learnt from this, using the same tactics to destroy the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and bringing the communist tyranny to its knees.

Shadow, with your total lack of understanding of the Vietnam War as demonstrated by your last pathetic post on the subject. I would not even know where to begin to educate you on that matter, a extremely complex subject may I add, a subject I have taken a very keen interest in over the past 40 years, having read and watched much to do with the war, and the causes and the outcomes both for the Vietnamese and others including Australians who were involved.

In no way has anything you have posted in that bit of high school history justified the US spending $640US billion annual on militarism, more than the next 8 top spending nations combined. It has nothing tp do with bring "freedom and democracy to the world", but everything to do with feeding the US military-industrial complex. Did you read what Dwight D Eisenhower, not a noted radical, had to say on the subject?

Margret 'Bloody' Thatcher ordered the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano, with the resultant loss of 323 lives, in contravention of stated British policy on engagement. In many peoples minds that act made Margret 'Bloody' Thatcher a war criminal.

Paul,

You are hilarious. First you list the conditions required for a war crime, yet are unable to link any one of them to the sinking of the Belgrano. Next you come up with a half arsed definition of a war crime in that Thatcher went against a non existent "stated policy".

The reality is that the only war crime exists in the fevered imagination of the loony left whingers, and I am expecting an equally feeble explanation as to how the Korean war was all the fault of the US.

As for the Vietnam war, I wait in breathless anticipation for your explanation, I suspect your 40 years of trolling through Pravda was wasted.

The post WWII Vietnam War had it origins in the French failure to honor the undertakings it gave in the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1938. During WWII the United States had supported the Vietnamese nationalists, the Viet Minh led by Ho Chi Minh, in their armed resistance to Japanese imperialism in Indochina. Following the defeat of Japan the US which had previously opposed French re-occupation under the Roosevelt administration took a far more conciliatory stance to the French under Truman. Ho Chi Minh formed the independent state of Vietnam in September 1945. The French with the aid of both British and Japanese troops soon regained control, fighting continued until the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954.
At the Geneva Conference of 1954, France relinquished all territorial claims to Indochina. National elections were planed for July 1956, elections which most certainly would have seen a nationalists victory under Ho. The forces of the US backed, but vastly unpopular, Bao Dai regime in Saigon and those of the Nationalists under Ho Chi Minh first engaged in hostilities in November 1955. American involvement seen an escalation of the war until the American withdrawal and its failed Vietnamisation policy, seen final victory by the Nationalists forces in August 1973 with the fall of Saigon.

"the US spend[s] $640US billion annual on militarism, more than the next 8 top spending nations combined."

I presume you mean they spend the money on the military, not only militarism.

I'd point out that those who you have obviously unthinkingly accepted make these comparisons erroneously. If you use the more accurate conversion tool of PPP then the numbers become much less stark. A minor but still important point.

So why does the US spend so much more on its military than any other nation? The main reason is that the task of defending democracy and freedom world-wide has fallen disproportionately on the US. While many other nations have a vested interest in that defence, few have been willing ot make the necessary monetary sacrifices required to fulfill those requirements. For example, Japan up until very recent times effectively abdicated all responsibilities for its own defence and the general defence of freedom-loving world. The US picked up that responsibility. Equally, although to a lesser extent, the large European nations out-sourced their defence to the US such that when, for example, they felt the need to operate militarily in the their own backyard (Kosovo) they were incapable to doing so without the US backing them.

So the US picked up the slack. But it didn't do it for altruistic reasons but because it was clearly in its own best interests to do so, since the welfare and economic success of the US depends on the maintenance of the current world paradigm.

The US has been called upon three times in the past century to save the world from tyrannous regimes, Finally it, the US, realised that it would be continually called on to do so unless it actively organised the defence of freedom loving West through NATO and ANZUS and a string of smaller pacts. But for those to work the US had to lend its economic power to the West's military equation. This in turn lead to disproportionate US military spending. QED.

Mhaze, do you believe your own propaganda? "The main reason is that the task of defending democracy and freedom world-wide has fallen disproportionately on the US" Give us some examples of the US delivering all this freedom and democracy stuff.

"since the welfare and economic success of the US depends on the maintenance of the current world paradigm." Only to feed their military-industrial complex.

"The US has been called upon three times in the past century to save the world from tyrannous regimes," can you point us in the direction of these 3 times."

The useful idiots will fall for this American clap trap, hook, line and sinker. Go for it Mhaze, your doing well. Shadow will be alone soon to back you up.

Shadow Minister and Mhaze:

Reading your combined drivel, I find it hard to believe that this garbage is NOT coming directly from the auspices of the CIA.

Anyone with a glimmer of grey-matter would have to accept the reality that the Vietnam War was an internal Civil War ( much like your apparently "beloved American" Civil War ) and which during its few short years wiped out the cream of American youth.

When the French Foreign Legion were massacred and brought the edge of extinction at Dien Bien Phu, the French nation was smart enough to opt out and leave it to what it really was, a CIVIL WAR, and by the by, I think that most intelligent people would agree that Vietnam is now a much happier and prosperous unified nation.

I fear for the future of this world, whilst we continue to hear the propaganda being churned out by so-called "protectors of Freedom and Democracy" who sit on their thrones, plotting the next move to destabilize the world community, whilst at the same time selling their weaponry to all and any buyers, to feed the greed of the weapons manufacturers, to keep the Sheriff`s six guns swinging from the hip!

Incidentally, when you are stuck for a sensible answer, please don`t resort to belittling your adversary`s English compository skills, and it doesn`t make you appear any smarter!

Paul,

Still waiting for your version of Thatcher's "stated policy". As I said, you should stop reading Pravda for your information.

1 The last Franco Siamese treaty was in 1907 not 1938

2 France withdrew in 1954, and Vietnam was partitioned into North and South Vietnam prior to elections for the whole country scheduled in 1956 which was blocked by the Soviets not the US, with the North then beginning a guerilla insurgency followed by direct military action.

3 Saigon fell in 1975 (not 1973) after the US withdrew in 1973.

Shadow, I wrote my piece from memory, unlike you who had to rely on good old Dr Google. Yes the fall of Saigon was in 1975.

"which was blocked by the Soviets not the US," how silly of the Soviets to do that, considering Ho Chi Minh was a moral to win the up coming elections of 1956.

In 1938 the French began a policy of "Equalism" under the terms of the Franco-Siamese treaty in Indochina, as a counter to Japanese expansionism. With the Vietnamese nationalists believing in return for their support in opposing Japanese aggression they would be promoted as political equals by the French. This was a deception on the part of the French. as demonstrated by events subsequent to 1945. The French capitulated to Japanese demands in 1940, allowing Japan to station troops in French Indochina to protect Japanese assets, with the French actively assisting the Japanese to imprison Vietnamese dissidents. Again with French assistance Japan was able to establish a puppet state under Bao Dai in Vietnam, which lasted until 1945, when the France tried to reestablish colonial rule.

Like many, you most likely seen Ho Chi Minh as a communists. In fact Ho was first and foremost a nationalists, wanting to established a free self-governing Vietnam within well defined boarders. At best Ho was a reluctant communists, believing a 'socialists collective' was the best way forward for his impoverished country. The Western powers failed to understand Vietnam and its nationalists leadership, and both sides paid an unreasonable price for that lack of understanding.

Shadow, regardless of all the historical dates and facts, one thing is for certain, it would not have taken a great deal of effort by all involved to have avoided the Vietnam War, an extremely costly war for all concerned. At least 1,500,000 people, mostly Vietnamese, died as a direct result of the war.
I had hoped that Vietnam would have taught America a valuable lesson. unfortunately it did not, the US continues to this day to conduct an aggressive foreign policy towards others. At the moment America is demonstrating a belligerent attitude towards their perceived (economic) enemies China and Russia, which is not helpful in bring peace to a much troubled world, just the opposite. Unfortunately the military-industrial complex in the United States is too powerful, and any winding back of US militarism would be economically disastrous for the US conglomerates that feed off that militarism, and they know it!

Paul/Crackcup

"Give us some examples of the US delivering all this freedom and democracy stuff. "

Let's see. Western Europe after WWII, Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, Japan, Sth Korea, Israel, S-E Asia. All exist as democracies under the US military umbrella.

Paul asked...""The US has been called upon three times in the past century to save the world from tyrannous regimes," can you point us in the direction of these 3 times.""

Against the Second Reich, the Axis and the Soviet Union.

"I find it hard to believe that this garbage is NOT coming directly from the auspices of the CIA."

Into conspiracy theories Crackcup?

Crackcup, interesting that you'd raise the American Civil War AND presume to know what I think about it (" "beloved American" Civil War"; seriously?). There is a subset of the reflex anti-US brigade who simply spew forth anything they can come up with that they hope puts the US in a bad light, irrespective of its relevance. Crackcup is smack in the middle of those 'thinkers'.

While your with us Crackcup...a while back you asserted "Tony Blair admitted publicly that the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was a LIE!." When I called you out on that little fantasy and asked for your evidence, you scurried away with nary an attempt to justify your hyperbole. I'm just wondering if you'd like to own up now.

"At the moment America is demonstrating a belligerent attitude towards their perceived (economic) enemies China and Russia, which is not helpful in bring peace to a much troubled world, just the opposite."

Wow, just wow.

In flagrant contravention of the 1994 LAw of the Sea treaty that China signed, China is claiming through military force islands that are, at the very very least, disputable. Equally, in contravention of all history, China is claiming the Senkaku Islands, and the Ryukyu chain.

Meanwhile the new Tsar of Russia has invaded and occupied the Crimea, instigated warfare against the Ukraine and supplied those who shot down a civilian plane, containing, among other, many innocent Australian citizens.

Yet in the fantasy its-all-uncle-Sam's-fault world inhabited by Paul, the US is being belligerent toward these peace-loving nations.

Wow, just wow.

Mhaze:
You Richard Cranium! Buy a Television Set or a Radio and you would have heard all about Tony Blair`s statement admitting that Britain went to war against Iraq, based upon the WMD LIE!

It was splattered across the news services at the time, which was somewhere around a fortnight ago.

Regardless of what was actually said by Blair, it is of little consequence now, as the destruction of Iraq and it`s centuries old culture, has been reduced to a smouldering ruin, and nothing will ever restore it to the way it was!

It is now Syria`s turn to be leveled by the good `ole boys and their mates ISIL, which was set up and funded by your "protectors of Democracy" in the first place!....that is of course according to the "Conspiracy Theorists"!

While we are on the subject of "Conspiracy Theories", you might like to explain why your good old buddies closed LAX to all aircraft for over a 100 miles over the week-end, and fired a "supposedly unarmed" ABM?

Could it possibly have been to flex a bit of muscle as a warning to Russia and China, that they are prepared to use ABM`s and IBM`s should the opportunity arise?

Paul,

With all due respect when has factual accuracy been a liability? You have been telling me how well you had studied the Vietnam war, yet your account is riddled with basic factual inaccuracies.

And yes, it is a matter of record that the Soviets blocked the elections which is no surprise, as they have never supported free and fair elections anywhere.

And the Viet Minh while being nationalists were heavily tied into the communists, from which they got top of the line fighter aircraft, missiles, tanks, guns and training, and their subsequent regime in no way resembled anything democratic.

And yes, the Americans did learn something from Vietnam. They used the same tactics against the Russians in Afghanistan which brought the soviet empire to its knees.

Come.come Shadow, you really are a historical revisionists "it is a matter of record that the Soviets blocked the elections" Who's record, yours!

Why on earth would you want to block an election when the one you are backing, in this case Ho Chi Minh, was a moral to win.
I admit I typed 1973 instead of 1975 hardly "riddled with basic factual inaccuracies"

Facts

The French were defeated 1954, the subsequent Geneva Accords allowed for the temporary division of the country into North and South. Until elections could be held in 1956 which would have allowed for reunification.

In 1955 a referendum was held in the south, the US backed Prime Minister Neo Dinh Diem who proposed a republic with him as head, the opposition was former emperor Bao Dai, wanting a monarchy. Dinh claimed victory in what was a massively fraudulent election. The US claimed the election was fair, and backed Diem's victory, even going as far as calling the complete fraud "a triumph for democracy" That was the end of the French who had backed Dai, they had installed Dai's puppet government in 1949. Both the Soviets and China failed to offer any serious objection to Diem. Diem with CIA assistance moved quickly to consolidate his power base in the south. Diem then claimed his victory was justification for scrapping the reunification elections due in 1956. Diem remained in power until 1963, when he was ousted through a CIA orchestrated coup, having Diam assassinated.

So Shadow there is the facts. It was Diam with US backing which stopped the elections in Vietnam in 1956.

So Crackcup,

We'll take that as your admission that Blair never said that he lied about the WMDs. Yes he has said that we now know that they probably didn't exist. And yes he's said that they went to war based, at least in part, on that false belief. But nowhere has he said that he or the government lied about their existence.They were mistaken about their existence but didn't lie about their existence. IS the difference too subtle for you? So either you decided to gild the lily to make your point more pronounced OR you heard what you wanted to hear rather than what was actually said.

"why your good old buddies closed LAX to all aircraft for over a 100 miles over the week-end, and fired a "supposedly unarmed" ABM?"

Well, actually, they didn't close LAX. Just another case of hearing what you want to hear rather than hearing the truth?

I'm fascinated how you, in your rabid, unthinking anti-US mode, would think that test firing an ABM would be an act of aggression. ABMs are, by definition, defensive weapons. IF the US was telling the Russians/Chinese anything (and I don't think they were) it was that if you attack us we'll defend ourselves. Now I know that in the world you inhabit the US should just let itself be wiped out so that those you'd prefer to be running things can do so, but its a stretch of logic (sorry to use words you don't understand) to think that testing defensive weapons is an act of aggression.

I can't help but notice that after you and Paul were demanding to know who were these democracies defended by the US, and my providing some examples, there was a rush to change the subject.

Mhaze:

You seem to be a total master at manipulating statements or alleged statements? you said:" I can`t help but notice that after you and Paul were demanding to know who were these democracies defended by the US, and my providing some example, there was a rush to change the subject."

Once again you have excelled in contriving your own bovine excreta.
Never have I "demanded" to be told anything in this article. You fabricated another "porky" to try to make yourself appear to be a little more intelligent than you obviously really are!

I have no need to ask "who were these democracies......." I am fully aware of some of the total disasters incurred by your idols, eg: The Korean "police action", the Vietnam tragedy, Cuba`s Guantanamo "Bay of Pigs", the semi-obliteration of Iraq and the ongoing "attempt to remove Syria`s President Assad",....just to name a few, and disregarding Afghanistan and the probably many other little forays into modern day insanity.

As far as the Blair issue is concerned,..."when is a lie NOT a LIE?"...when it is a statement issued by a Politician, and we have heard so many of them aimed at the gullible public in recent years!

Your further "nuggets of fertilizer" that I "must be rabid and unthinking to suggest that the firing of an ABM would be an act of aggression"?.....well, all I can say is that I am glad I am NOT living next door to you!

Paul,

After declaring yourself to be an expert, you got several key facts wrong. France did not breach the 1938 Franco Siamese treaty, as there was no such treaty. Neither did Saigon fall in 1973, but in 1975 as I saw on TV when I was 12. These were not just typos but fundamental mistakes. Yes, I do use google before posting opinions which is exactly where I got that the Soviets were the ones to block elections in North Vietnam.

Given the choice between an online account of the war, and your error ridden opinion, I will take the online account every time. If you can support your "facts" with references you might retain a shred of credibility.