its a trust issue. and i dont trust anyone when it comes to this! essential spending indeed.roar wrote:Lots of people understand that, David. They also understand that it has to be a two way deal, otherwise one side is left defenseless. It's unfortunate that it's the state of the world but also pretty naive to think otherwise.David wrote:I’d feel a lot safer in a world in which aggressive denuclearisation was pursued, frankly. Us getting nukes only encourages more hostile countries around us to do the same. It’s amazing how many people don’t understand that.
Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty
Moderator: bbmods
- think positive
- Posts: 40199
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 90 times
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
-
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
That's a fair question. The arms will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but if sensible accompanying policy costs more than lunch at 7-Eleven and 12 joules of energy, it will be deemed idealistic. An actual policy framework, someone bothering to get out of bed and speak to regional leaders, and strict controls on political interference from the military-industrial complex, should be up-front conditions. But that requires people to think beyond some simplistic mental transaction (buy pill, fix problem), and so things worsen.David wrote:But are we even pursuing bilateral arms reduction initiatives? I fear that there's little appetite for it, not when so much political capital can be wrung from militarism (and literal capital from defence industry contracts).
So, even though I support it on the basis of risk management, I don't support reckless handouts and perverse incentives. But can anyone be bothered putting that into a policy and passing it? I'm surprised we can somehow still organise the collection of rubbish.
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
- Tannin
- Posts: 18748
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:39 pm
- Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
https://www.theage.com.au/business/the- ... 55adj.html
A view from the Telegraph in London. Refreshing in its optimism, in its view that China has overreached and is now opposed by too many nations to continue its expansionist actions, but needs to take the rose-coloured glasses off.
Nevertheless, a must-read.
A view from the Telegraph in London. Refreshing in its optimism, in its view that China has overreached and is now opposed by too many nations to continue its expansionist actions, but needs to take the rose-coloured glasses off.
Nevertheless, a must-read.
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54687
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 86 times
- Been liked: 95 times
-
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
I was going to post that one, too.
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
-
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
The only Australian politician worth a potato cake on the matter:
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 55ap2.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ationalism
The original just in case someone has access:
https://www.australianforeignaffairs.com
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 55ap2.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ationalism
The original just in case someone has access:
https://www.australianforeignaffairs.com
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
- Morrigu
- Posts: 6001
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2001 6:01 pm
Morrison Government declares Beijing's South China Sea claims 'illegal' at United Nations
Australia has raised the stakes in its already troubled relationship with China by backing the United States in formally declaring Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea to be illegal.
In a letter to the United Nations, Australia's permanent mission rejected the Chinese Communist Party's claim to disputed islands in the crucial trading waters, calling them "inconsistent" with international law.
"The Australian Government rejects any claims by China that are inconsistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in particular, maritime claims that do not adhere to its rules on baselines, maritime zones and classification of features.," the document states.
Australia rejects any claims to internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf based on such straight baselines."
The move, likely to infuriate Beijing, aligns Australia with the Trump administration, which earlier this month reversed a previous policy of not taking sides in such disputes.
Australia has previously urged all claimants to disputed South China Sea islands and maritime features to resolve their claims in accordance with international law.
China is yet to formally respond to Australia's statement.
But it said earlier this month that the US position "neglected the history and facts" around issues concerning the South China Sea.
Australia's dramatic shift in position comes as Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds prepare to travel to Washington next week to meet with their US counterparts for the 2020 Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations
This week, the ABC revealed Australian warships had recently encountered Chinese warships while travelling through the South China Sea near the disputed Spratly islands, which Beijing claims.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-07- ... n/12492070
Australia has raised the stakes in its already troubled relationship with China by backing the United States in formally declaring Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea to be illegal.
In a letter to the United Nations, Australia's permanent mission rejected the Chinese Communist Party's claim to disputed islands in the crucial trading waters, calling them "inconsistent" with international law.
"The Australian Government rejects any claims by China that are inconsistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in particular, maritime claims that do not adhere to its rules on baselines, maritime zones and classification of features.," the document states.
Australia rejects any claims to internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf based on such straight baselines."
The move, likely to infuriate Beijing, aligns Australia with the Trump administration, which earlier this month reversed a previous policy of not taking sides in such disputes.
Australia has previously urged all claimants to disputed South China Sea islands and maritime features to resolve their claims in accordance with international law.
China is yet to formally respond to Australia's statement.
But it said earlier this month that the US position "neglected the history and facts" around issues concerning the South China Sea.
Australia's dramatic shift in position comes as Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds prepare to travel to Washington next week to meet with their US counterparts for the 2020 Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations
This week, the ABC revealed Australian warships had recently encountered Chinese warships while travelling through the South China Sea near the disputed Spratly islands, which Beijing claims.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-07- ... n/12492070
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
-
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
- think positive
- Posts: 40199
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 240 times
- Been liked: 90 times
- Tannin
- Posts: 18748
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:39 pm
- Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
All good PTID, except for one thing. The country defying international law in this instance is China. They are so far outside the law in the waters off the Philippines that you can't even see it from where they stand.
They have to be stopped. They need to see significant strength and multi-national unity. Appeasement never works. Morrison is correct in this instance.
They have to be stopped. They need to see significant strength and multi-national unity. Appeasement never works. Morrison is correct in this instance.
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
-
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
^I may have given the wrong impression. I am aware of that, and fine with making it clear; as I say it would be nice if this were a golden era of caring about international law. My support for protecting small nations from being bullied by those trampling international law hasn't changed.
But beware the company you keep. Be very aware.
But beware the company you keep. Be very aware.
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
- Pi
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:30 pm
- Location: SA
Bit of an absolutist statement; presumably the 'party' must succeed for China to succeed. If so; then following people dont matter:pietillidie wrote:
China simply must succeed, and any policy that fails to recognise that, and fails to care about the futures of 1.4B Chinese folks, is setting us up for an unthinkable catastrophe.
The estimated 10 to 80 million Falun Gong practitioners.
The estimated 12 million Uyghurs.
The 7.45 million in Hong Kong.
3.18 million Tibetans.
...and the list could go on..
Perhaps the Chinese communist party is the biggest impediment to the welfare of most of its 1.4 billion people; after all the party has only about 90 million members, (mostly Han Chinese) , ...out of 1.4 billion.....about 6.5 percent of the population.
What if the party fails? does China fail? Probably not; communist parties often fail but life goes on.
Considering the floods and ongoing pandemic , who knows.
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica
Floreat Pica
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54687
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 86 times
- Been liked: 95 times
Communist parties all eventually fall because their philosophy just doesn't work.
Enter the opposition. https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/ch ... 55fdv.html
Enter the opposition. https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/ch ... 55fdv.html
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.