The South China Sea issue is one we should keep our nose out of.
If the US wants a war with China, let it have one, but we should have NO part of it.

I WILL NOT support this country in its efforts to stir up China, or any of its other stupid puppet foreign policy agendas.
I honestly don't give a crap about what the Chinese do with the sea on their doorstep.

Firstly I don't see how it affects us.
Secondly I don't see how getting involved benefits us.
Finally, the risk of taking a side is too great if one side decides that push should come to shove.

* If events were to spiral out of control, then our greatest position would be to have remained neutral.

There is nothing good to be gained for our nation by getting involved in the South China Sea issue.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Unfortunately Australia does not have a real choice in this matter.

If it stays neutral the US will see it as a slap in the face and will withdraw its protection of Australia if Australia is invaded by China.

Conversely, the Chinese will see it as supporting China's claim over the South China Sea and that Australia is validating Chinese aggression against the US and the nations around the rim of the South China Sea.

If Turnbull returns from his trip to Beijing this week waving a piece of paper over his head and claiming that China has no other territorial claims outside of the South China Sea then I suggest you start running for the hills.

My view is that China is intent on absorbing SE Asia and Australia into its expanding empire and that nations in the western Pacific should support the US in stopping it in its tracks and force China to dismantle its militarisation of the South China Sea.

If you have ever heard of a little event called World War 2 you will know of the consequences that came from the failure of the US and its allies in stopping Hitler in his tracks. Do you want to see this happen again, but in your own back yard.

You'll have a lot more to worry about than just debt!

loudmouth: NOBODY tells me what to do. Ever.

Hey Mr Opinion,
You've brought up too many topics for me to address in one reply.
World Wars, Hitler...

Whilst I'm open to your thoughts that China wishes to expand its territory, I wouldn't give credence to the idea until they act on these plans your alleging and invade another nation.
Until then I can only treat this claim as baseless rhetoric (nothing personal) and the equivalent of beating war drums, which I see as unnecessary and actually drawing us closer to war, one in which we have no possibility of winning.

One point you failed to acknowledge is that the US can't save us from a nuclear armed China with a 200 million strong army and a military alliance with Russia.
If push comes to shove we're on the losing team - do you get that?

I'm not certain China truly wants to aggressively expand its territory or make war, or whether its just reacting to the US's own military strategy of expanding bases and missile capabilities in nations surrounding China.

There's always 2 sides to every story, and the people are always lied to about the real reasons for wars.

We need nuclear subs that can stay on the bottom for months with nuclear strike capabilities as a deterrent and missile defense at home such as the S500 to even be capable of taking down modern weapons.
I doubt the US can even protect itself against these types of threats and its far behind Russia in the electronic warfare game.

The issue about supporting the US from my point of view is complicated because of whether or not its a good idea to continually back US foreign policy, given the mess they've gotten themselves into financially and the need to make war in other nations to support the petro-dollar, their aggressive Neocon liberal interventionist strategy of regime change in other nations and their imperial "American Exceptionalism" and Brzezinski type attitudes to foreign policy against Russia and China.

So its not as simple as you imply.
I won't support our nation being a pawn in someone else's stupid game.

RC, a tt is a very small tax on every financial transaction, the exact same % paid by every single person who spends money electronically.

Furthermore, it taxes money not people and well tax the 1% just as it will the remaining 99%.

No more income tax returns needed ( that's why accountants hate it) and no getting out of paying your fair share of tax, unless o e uses cash but that's a very small amount on the broad scale of things.

While it may not be the answer, pussy footing around like we are is definitely not the answer.

Of cause the big losers will be the non workers, but, with all that extra cash circulating around there are bound to be plenty of jobs as well as the economy will boom.

I just wish the govenment

Rache>> Sorry to disappoint you but the role of the Future Fund is to ensure Superannuation liabilities for members of the Commonwealth Super Scheme,
It has nothing at all to do with the aged pension or anything else<<

Thanks Rasch, you didn’t disappoint me. I know what the Future Fund is, it is 120 billion dollars on the positive side of the ledger, and that’s what I used it for. Whether it is earmarked to support the superannuants or not it is a positive balance. The mention of the aged pension in this discussion is relevant.......do you think the government would have raised the age threshold if it had the funds to support it?