I cannot help but get the feeling there is a takeover in the wind. My counrty is seen as a convenient place to park all sorts of things, bombs you don't happen to be using, troops, and now aircraft, not to mention the odd warship


Now I know we will probably never see a Joint Strike fighter and so have a hole in our air defense but this solution just smacks too much of a hostile take over. Let me say it clearly we have no interest in becoming the fifty first state of america

US Air Force plans to spread its fighting wings - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-31/usaf-plans-for-pacific-foreign-pol3bicy-magazine-report/4856112)

Trust me... we will have done your country a great service if you never see an F-35

But you're completely content with the Chinese 'string of pearls' strategy . Name the one country in East Asia that has territorial expansion as it's major foreign policy goal . Hint ;it isn't the USA .

I am sure you can get a better deal from China. Until the Afhgans, and Africans are in a position to undercut you.

I'm just curious, your articles never seem to mention anything about your government's role in things, why is that?

FYI, this is old news (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20111116/NEWS/111160323/Australia-agreement-expands-USAF-role-there) so if your people had to learn it from foreign media they must not be paying attention...


Australia agreement expands USAF role there

CANBERRA, Australia — The U.S. military presence in Australia is expanding, with plans underway to have more U.S. aircraft rotate through the south Pacific continent.

The Marines and Navy are expected to expand their presence in the region as well, with plans to deploy about 2,500 Marines there over the next several years.

The agreement was announced Wednesday at a joint news conference with President Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard. It is widely viewed as a response to China's growing aggressiveness, although the president insisted that the U.S. does not fear Beijing.

China responded swiftly, warning that an expanded U.S. military footprint in Australia may not be appropriate and deserved greater scrutiny.

Obama called the plan "significant," and said it would build capacity and cooperation between the U.S. and Australia. U.S. officials were careful to emphasize that the pact was not an attempt to create a permanent American military presence in Australia.

Australian media is reporting that plans call for B-52 bombers, F/A-18 attack aircraft, C-17 transports and aerial refueling tankers to operate out of the Australian air force facility at Tindal, about 200 miles southeast of Darwin.

A Pacific Air Forces spokesperson couldn't be reached immediately Wednesday to give details on what the announcement would mean for the service.

In addition to the Air Force, Marines will reportedly be organized as a special-purpose air-ground task force and be based at Robertson Barracks in Darwin, an Australian military installation on the country's northern coast. The buildup to 2,500 personnel, expected to be complete within six years, will require an expansion of the base, but no new installations, according to reports.

Also, more U.S. ships will transit through the Sterling naval base, south of Perth in western Australia, according to Australian media.

Obama and Gillard said the increased air presence would allow the U.S. and Australia to more effectively respond to natural disasters and humanitarian crises in the region.

As with your little fit over the bombs you seem to have difficulty understanding it's not a one way street, it's an agreement.

I'm just curious, your articles never seem to mention anything about your government's role in things, why is that?


You must not have been listening, it's an election year here and the blessed day gets closer, and a lot of dlckheads are going to get it in the neck, I'm talking WIPEOUT here and along with it goes their agreements


As with your little fit over the bombs you seem to have difficulty understanding it's not a one way street, it's an agreement.[/QUOTE]

You forget It wasn't just me and Mr Krudd demonstrated how much he is in your pocket by not saying a word. Not a word.

So your pi$$ed that your leaders are wienies.

but you're completely content with the Chinese 'string of pearls' strategy . Name the one country in East Asia that has territorial expansion as it's major foreign policy goal . Hint ;it aint the USA .

You must not be getting all the memo's, I distinctly heard BO say he was pivoting towards Asia. You always have to paint someoneelse as the bad guy. Yes, China has ambitions and guess who they have by the balls, when they take over Taiwan you will be the first to agree it is Chinese territory. I understand their territorial ambitions to regain all the territory they traditionally regard as theirs. But I also know you have territorial ambitions, in the last few years you have had to give up some of your empire and you don't like it. Ask yourself why are the Philippines and Japan sick of having your military footprint on their soil. We have observed this and those of us who actually think over here don't want to repeat the experience and I certainly don't want the F**kedup people of our Northern Territory to experience it

So your pi$$ed that your leaders are wienies.

These wienies are going, we are going to BBQUE them, one has gone already, the true believers really don't like those who sign agreements that involve foreign bases

I distinctly heard BO say he was pivoting towards Asia.
And you equate the defense of our allies against Chinese aggression as us having "territorial ambitions " ?

Yes, China has ambitions and guess who they have by the balls, when they take over Taiwan you will be the first to agree it is Chinese territory
Yes I'm sure the emperor is all talk. God help the free people of Tawain .


I understand their territorial ambitions to regain all the territory they traditionally regard as theirs. But I also know you have territorial ambitions, in the last few years you have had to give up some of your empire and you don't like it.
In the past all we asked is a small plot of land to bury our dead who were defending freedom . But now we bring our dead home. So you are wrong . We have no territorial ambition .

Ask yourself why are the Philippines and Japan sick of having your military footprint on their soil. We have observed this and those of us who actually think over here don't want to repeat the experience and I certainly don't want the F**kedup people of our Northern Territory to experience it
You got that wrong . If they have concerns about us it's about to possibility of us NOT honoring out commitment to our mutual defense alliance.

these wienies are going,
Can't happen soon enough.. you need more John Howard's and fewer KRudd's and Red Julia's .

You got that wrong . If they have concerns about us it's about to possibility of us NOT honoring out committment to our mutual defense alliance.

No Tom it's the conduct of your personnel, lack of respect for local laws, local people and local customs

can't happen soon enough.. you need more John Howard's and fewer KRudd's and Red Julia's .

Yes Tom but John Howards are hard to find, men who have been forged in the cruciable of politics and who will go the hard yards and tackle the real problems.
Guns, Immigrants, Labour Laws, Debt, Taxation. Krudd has now gone so far to the right he might switch parties, as an opportunist I'm sure if he could switch to the winning team he would

Lol KRudd as a right winger would make me Genghis Khan in comparison .

Yes I could see you leading the hordes of capitalists preying on our country like locusts

Well that's good news! why didn't you say that before

North told to forget about Stealth bomber claims - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-01/australian-defence-association-on-usaf-plans-for-northern-austr/4858146)

I find it very interesting that this discloses that the US air capability may be somewhat less than we supposed

Bombers are expensive but if you need a few, and have cash..

We have the cash, we won't need it for the joint strike fighter

Well that's good news! why didn't you say that before

North told to forget about Stealth bomber claims - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-01/australian-defence-association-on-usaf-plans-for-northern-austr/4858146)

I find it very interesting that this discloses that the US air capability may be somewhat less than we supposed

How many stealth bombers do you think we should have? We still have the B1 and a nice fleet of B52s, plus our fighter capabilities include quite a few ordnance options.

This is what I found interesting in your article.


"What does surprise me is that people in Darwin are surprised," he said.

"I mean, you expect this type of alarmism in the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne triangle because people don't realise that foreign defence forces exercise in northern Australia on an extremely regular basis and have done for five decades.

You found it interesting that the people of Darwin didn't know they were receiving friendly visits

you found it interesting that the people of Darwin didn't know they were receiving friendly visits

Do you not understand English?

Belmont Club » The US Ambassador to Australia Debates Australia's Former Senior Officer in Iraq (http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/08/01/the-us-ambassador-to-australia-debates-australias-former-senior-officer-in-iraq/#more-30566)


The subject: China.

I attended a debate on the question of whether “The US Alliance is our [Australia's] best defence” at the City Recital Hall in Sydney. For the affirmative were US Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich and Katherine Ziesing, the editor of the Australian Defence Force Magazine. Facing them were Professor Zhu Feng Deputy Director for the Centre for International and Strategic Studies at Peking University and — the big surprise — retired Major General Jim Molan for the negative. Molan was the Chief of Operations in Iraq during 2004 and 2005. Molan is rumored have the ear of the opposition, who are tipped to defeat Kevin Rudd when election's are held in a few month's time.

Molan was the surprise advocate for the negative. I knew him to be, from having attended a dinner at which he spoke, a passionate believer in the positive nature of the United States and an unabashed admirer of the US armed forces, many of whom served under him in his Iraq coalition position. My surmise about his presentation proved correct, as will be later described.

The debate was recorded by the BBC and readers can probably watch it in its entirety when it is presented in the coming weeks. The moderator announced the pre-debate poll of the audience, which packed the auditorium. The numbers going in were 36% for, 30% again and the balance undecided. Yes and No were roughly tied. Could the debaters alter the audience's perceptions?

The opening was delivered by Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich who was every inch the charming advocate for United States. He was funny and eloquent and thus armed almost managed to pull off depicting the situation in the Pacific as if there were no tensions with China worth mentioning. The main problems, Bleich said, were fundamentally ones of growth arising increased resource competition driven a burgeoning prosperity and threats from non-state actors who were intent on harm “because they hate our way of life”. But where Peking was concerned, Bleich emphasized, there was no rivalry as such.

Unfortunately for Bleich this sunny impression was rudely shattered by Professor Zhu Feng, who when his turn came to speak described his nervousness at having to fly over so many US military bases ringing China on his way to Sydney. He described without hesitation or equivocation the deep suspicion in China at what he perceived was the military buildup in the Pacific which many Chinese saw as “containment”. In stark contrast to Bleich's humorous delivery, the Professor warned that Beijing would take a dim view of any attempts to reopen US bases in the Philippines and indeed, any further attempt to add to the cordon of steel that the Chinese leadership felt was stifling them.

He pointedly told the Australian audience that China was that country's biggest trading partner. Would it not be better, he asked, if Australia put aside the strategy of alliance and relied upon trade? Was it not better after all, to be China's friend?

The next speaker for the affirmative, Katherine Ziesing, was the first to emphasize that Australia was wholly dependent on sea lanes of communication which itself was powerless to secure. That — and she looked at Zhu — was why defense was not provocation. She reeled off statistics describing the vast tonnages that flowed through the South China Sea and the straits between China and Japan and noted that without the United States, Australia would not have a snowball's chance in hell of guaranteeing its own security. Hence, she closed, an alliance with America was Australia's best defense.

But her presentation, though eloquent, reasoned and factual was the undercard. Everyone was waiting for Molan to answer the persuasive Bleich.

Molan, as I knew, could be as good a speaker as Bleich. And he was. He began by demolishing every Leftist characterization of America, he described the US Armed Forces as the finest and most moral fighting force on the face of the planet. And having cleared the underbrush with fire and scythe he delivered his punchline: in all this — through the Cold War to the Present — Australia had been a free rider and every prospect of remaining a free rider. Turning to the audience he said, 'isn't that what most of the world wants to do? Fight to the last American soldier, he said. 'You know it's true,' he said. You could hear a pin drop. And this attitude is not worthy of Australia, he added.

Because the day comes, Molan argued, as it came when an earlier generation relied on Britain in the 1940s — when the moocher can't mooch any more. When he has to buy his own drinks. And history teaches that sooner or later the day comes. The long dolorous annals of mankind show that “peace is just the interval when governments are busy reloading”. Hence the only safe bet is to shift for yourself. Or be ready to.

You can fight alongside America, he said, without being a moocher. And far better to enter an alliance with something in hand, rather than show up expecting to come along for the ride. Hence he closed, “America is not Australia's best defense. Australia is Australia's best defense.” Let us fight alongside America for preference, he said, but at all events be ready to fight alone. On note that he closed.
The rest of the debate was anti-climatic, expended in watching the speakers, including Professor Zhu, fend of the strange and bizarre questions put to the panel by the World Socialist Alliance or the Free Julian Assange movement some of whom refused to shift from the microphone when their time was up. There was a moment of comic relief when Professor Zhu was asked who China was relying on to stop North Korea and he readily answered, “the United States.” Everybody relied on the United States, he said, adding that even China prospered under its benign hegemony. But the time had come, Zhu reiterated, to give China it's due, a message he emphasized over and over again.

Jeffrey Bleich, a lawyer in his past life, was worth every penny as an advocate. He was adept at parrying the wilder suggestions from the audience, including allegations from one who believed that 9/11 was faked like the moon landing. He was masterful at reminding the audience of how much Australians shared with America. As a pitchman Bleich is exemplary. But his basic policy position, which was to completely downplay the rivalry with China, proved his undoing. The urgency with which Molan urged an Australian buildup and the frank expression of China's suspicion was too strong to be wholly dispelled by the Ambassador's manner.

There was a problem and Jeffrey Bleich for all his charm wasn't facing it, rather doing his level best to draw attention away from it.

At the conclusion of the debate a repolling showed a dramatic shift. The “Nos” had grown from 30% to over 50%. From rough equality the negative had swept the field. In the post debate analysis among friends it was remarked that most people understood that Molan wasn't really arguing against a US alliance. Rather he was arguing for Australia's participation as an adult, which meant in terms Molan described in the debate, spending at least 2% of its GNP on defense.
If this debate is any bellweather of public opinion, the probable conclusion to draw is that the region fears that America can no longer hold the ring. The moderator asked Molan if he considered Japan a free rider. The retired general offered “if you consider the relevant aspects of the Japanese military, such as the airforce, the BMD and its Navy, it's quite big. It is not clear that Japan is a free rider in that context. But when you look at Australia's unbalanced force mix, there is no other conclusion one can reach except that it is.” This suggests that if Tony Abbott defeats Labor in the next elections, there could be a chance that Australia will up its military expenditures. That is after all, what other countries in the region have been doing. By following suit, Australia will not be doing anything new. It is just late to the party.
But that's a contingency predicated on a possibility. Remember that the World Socialist Allance the Free Julian Assange movement can vote too.

Do you not understand English?

I understand the connotations of what was said which essentially, from the american perspective is you have nothing to be concerned about we have been visiting you for years and the local view is we hadn't noticed but we are concerned that there should be more of you

Tom I think you need to understand something here Molan is the military adviser to the Opposition therefore he will carry this view forward into the next government and his view is dangerous. Your own ambassador is unconcerned about China and well he might be it will take them ten years or more to build a force that could match what you are capable of putting in the field right now but Australia already spends a large amount on armaments. Our concern doesn't need to be China and standing alone against China, it needs to be Indonesia with whom we are far more likely to clash in the coming years and I see that we should seriously consider that the only way we can match anyone in the field is to develop our own nuclear capabilities. Before you laugh remember that we have vast deposits of uranium and the knowledge after all we have just invented a new enrichment process

I understand the connotations of what was said which essentially, from the american perspective is you have nothing to be concerned about we have been visiting you for years and the local view is we hadn't noticed but we are concerned that there should be more of you

Apparently you don't understand English but more likely your anti-American bent is still clouding your judgment. I was again quoting your source and your ADA director, take it up with him if he's surprised your people don't have a clue. Don't project on me for it.

Apparently you don't understand English but more likely your anti-American bent is still clouding your judgment. I was again quoting your source and your ADA director, take it up with him if he's surprised your people don't have a clue. Don't project on me for it.

The way I see it speech is that those who are not on the ground, those living in lofty towers far from Darwin, cannot see the problem that will be afforded by increased numbers of visiting military personnel, after all Darwin is a small place, somewhat unconcerned about wider issues. It is not about being anti-american but pro-local. These people already have serious social problems to deal with, they don't need an overlay of the problems which come with "friendly" visitors. Some of us, further to the south have seen first hand R&R and its undesirable characteristics and we don't expect the visitors to be confined to barracks

Your own ambassador is unconcerned about China and well he might be it will take them ten years or more to build a force that could match what you are capable of putting in the field right now
No our ambassador is an head in the sand Obot.

I think Molan has a valid point.. The West in general has built their nanny states on funding that they did not need to use in their defense budgets . Granted , Aussie has not been as bad as the rest; but 2 % of the budget on national defense should not be a burden.
And it I was considering that now the US is run by an egomaniac who speaks loudly and carries a limp noodle ,perhaps it's time for every nation to reset their relationship with the US ,and especially consider a common defense from the ONLY nation in the region that harbors territorial expansion.

no our ambassador is an head in the sand Obot.

I think Molan has a valid point .. The West in general has built their nanny states on funding that they did not need to use in their defense budgets . Granted , Aussie has not been as bad as the rest; but 2 % of the budget on national defense should not be a burden.
And it I was considering that now the US is run by an egomaniac who speaks loudly and carries a limp noodle ,perhaps it's time for every nation to reset their relationship with the US ,and especially consider a common defense from the ONLY nation in the region that harbors territorial expansion.

Tom Australia is 13th in the world in military expenditure ahead even of Canada and we already spend 1.7% of our budget on defense so yes 2% isn't a stretch but our $26 billion is dwarfted by your $682 billion expenditure and the world $1.8 trillion expenditure. Your military budget is pure paranoia, running almost 5% of your budget. I think america has been run by egomaniacs and meglomaniacs and the evidence is right there in the military budget. How can we reset our relationship with the US, short of saying we don't want to play this game. China has military expenditures one fifth of yours, don't you think that they are scrambling to counter the threat they see in you