Recently Israel said it would attack Iran, and American sat in the wings applauding. Now Iran makes it clear what its response would be.
Iran: Nobody would dare attack Islamic Republic - World news (http://www.mail.com/int/news/world/836964-iran-would-dare-attack-islamic-republic.html#.1258-stage-hero1-2)

Brinkmanship isn't pretty and we should all wonder why it is necessary? Unless, of course, it represents an excuse to keep american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's face it, america needs another war to pull its industries out of the doldrums but it doesn't need more middle eastern involvement

All I see here is more hot air from the Irainians. Remember Sudam Hussain's quotes about body bags? It was over in weeks. Who do they really think they are kidding?

Even the IAEA has admitted that the 12ers have been deceiving the world . Too bad the IAEA was complicit with the thugs from Tehran when Mohamed Al Baradei was in charge of the organization.

I also think it's urgent to investigate which members of the US intelligence community were complicit in putting out the fraud of a National Intelligence Estimate in December 2007 that all but said the Iranians had abandoned their pursuit of nukes .

That was a better time to deal with the Mahdi-hatter .

As you recall;that report was used by the Democrats running for the Presidency ;especially Obama and Biden ; to dismiss concerns about the growing nuke threat from Iran .

I don't get it frankly. When the world decided to act in unison it was able to peacefully force regime change in South Africa . This regime in Tehran is by far a greater threat to the world than the South Africans were ,and it is far more repressive to it's people . Yet a large part of the world shrugs it's shoulders as the lunatics running the country openly admit that their goal is to force an apocalyptic end game.
When homicidal messianic despots talk like that you best take them seriously .

Here we go again WMD! An excuse which never grows old, unless of course the US isn't concernedIAEA shows Iran nuke program intel to 35 nations - World news (http://www.mail.com/int/news/world/836250-iaea-iran-nuke-program-intel-to-35-nations.html#.1258-stage-hero1-4)

What are you talking about ? The IAEA clearly demonstrates what we have known for almost a decade. It supports the case I made above. Had the world acted then perhaps there would be no need to contemplate a military response. But to Israel and many of it's neighbors ;the threat of an Iranian nuke in the hands of the regime of the 12ers is an existential threat. They have no choice but to act.

Further ;it is apparent that the US is retreating from the region so we cannot even offer a credible deterence umbrella . You want to see an arms race ? Wait until the Pakis start giving the Sunni bomb to nations like Turkey ,Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Further ;it is apparent that the US is retreating from the region so we cannot even offer a credible deterence umbrella . You want to see an arms race ? Wait until the Pakis start giving the Sunni bomb to nations like Turkey ,Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

If the US is retreating from the region then they don't need to be concerned about Iran, they just need to go back to the other side of the Pacific. The Paki's have probably done what they intended to do. Pakistan was an instrument of american foreign policy, or was it the other way around. You are concerned about the Paki's without realising Pakistan is a failed state, without american aid they will sink out of sight and China will help them out

You want us to be concerned about China but if you offer nothing we might need to be concerned about you.

Anyway Tom one war at a time, you fight the wars you can win, or at least that's the way the planning goes, so why are you concerned about your allies. You need to realise that there is a big difference between rhetoric and action. In that part of the world they talk a lot but action rarely mirrors rhetoric

Go back to your illusions. You think that because you are an island continent in the middle of nowhere that the world will pass you by and it's not your concern.

The Paki nuclear technology has made it to your side of the world too and the fool in Pyongyang is a wild card.
You are foolish if you are not looking towards China and not see their expansionist ambitions . The same situation exists on China's perimeter . Proliferation will be the name of the game if the US goes home. At least your leaders realize that ,and will invite us to establish a forward operating base in Darwin. BTW.. feel free to keep Obama. He and Red Julia make a lovely couple.

Go back to your illusions. You think that because you are an island continent in the middle of nowhere that the world will pass you by and it's not your concern.

Well Tom for some this might be the middle of nowhere, but then a couple of hunderd years ago america was the middle of nowhere, so don't write us off. We are very well aware of what is happening in our region because, unlike the american, we educate our children to be aware of the rest of the world.


The Paki nuclear technology has made it to your side of the world too and the fool in Pyongyang is a wild card.

Pakistan responded to India, not to anyoneelse, and like all the people of the subcontinent, they like to make a buck, there being so few of them about. I'm not concerned about NK, you can worry if you want to. There are enough people in SK to worry about that one and eventually they will solve it, probably without your help.


You are foolish if you are not looking towards China and not see their expansionist ambitions . The same situation exists on China's perimeter . Proliferation will be the name of the game if the US goes home. At least your leaders realize that ,and will invite us to establish a forward operating base in Darwin. BTW.. feel free to keep Obama. He and Red Julia make a lovely couple.

When I look out I see american expansionist ambitions although they are a little dinted at the moment. You would deny China the same opportunity that you profited from. It's not a base in Darwin,
Tom,
http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=684377&vId=2843633&cId=Politics
Unless you want to buy one, it is american rotation through an existing Australian base, look up Robertson base Tom, so more US feet on the ground to chase the local girls and annoy the abo's, but far enough away from the rest of us so we don't know you are there. Darwin doesn't have the inferstructure to cater for a major US base
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin,_Northern_Territory... it is a tiny backwoods place as you would say, but they do run a nice line in petrol

We don't want Obama, Tom, we have enough coconuts already, so don't dump your trash on us.

I did not say we would establish an American base although I can see where that's inferred in my comment.


we have enough coconuts already

Ummm... there are some who would say that comment crosses the political correctness divide.

we have enough coconuts already



Ummm... there are some who would say that comment crosses the political correctness divide.

Not at all, Tom, down here we say what we mean and mean what we say.

When we speak of abo troublemakers, we are speaking of what the abo's call coconuts, people of mixed race and so the comment is correctly applied to BO. That boy doesn't know whether he is a Christian or a Muslim, I doubt he knows whether he is negro or white, he certainly has a history of being raised in a non negro community and yet he has exploited his racial connections.

Just so you are absolutely clear what is meant the comment speaks of a person's heart and mind. Coconut; black on the outside and white on the inside

Geez Clete, there you go with that "hidden racism" side of you again. There is but one race, no matter the outside, or the inside, dumb, smart, that's all relative.

What you think those "Abos" will stay down at the bottom forever? So don't worry about the Iranians, or there big brothers the Chinese, or cousins the Pakis. The coconut in Washington seems to handle foreigners quite well so far.

Ask Osama, or Momar! Oh that's right, you can't. No need to worry about what those depots are saying, or the things they are into. We won't let them blow YOU guys up. You should worry they blow themselves up while talking tough. Or there populations overturning them. The later may be more realistic than them intimidating the folks with the real NUKES.

Geez Clete, there you go with that "hidden racism" side of you again. There is but one race, no matter the outside, or the inside, dumb, smart, thats all relative.

.

Tal there is nothing hidden about me, what you see is what you get.

We might all be one race but certain things have moulded us to think differently and that is where the difference lies. How do I know someone might be thinking differently to me, could be the actions tell me and if I equate these difference to be cultural often you cannot deny how they were brought up which includes which people they have been in contact with is a significant factor.

So as you say the abo's may not always be on the bottom and some have risen well but they acknowledge themselves that what holds them back is very much cultural and the ones we see on the very bottom are those who belong nowhere, not culturally, not according to country and even the abo's use the term "skin" to determine whether someone belongs. They are not politically correct about it in your terms but they know what a coconut is.

Now I'm not concerned if you or the paki's or the NK blow themselves up while talking tough, regretable though it may be, it is a consequence of playing with firecrackers. One thing I do know is that we are not going to blow ourselves up and I really don't care whether you are there to help out or not, because you do things for your own reasons whether it affects us or not

And that Clete is the bottom line, everyone serves their own self interests. That's why I doubt we blow ourselves up, at least not on purpose (though all our nuclear reactors have run through their warranty), but we sure as hell won't let someone else blow us up either.

And be careful, your cultural superiority, while reassuring, is by no means a guarantee of continuing domination. Its relative, and subject to changes. Differences don't mean superior, nor does it take away from the similarities.

The only thing that counts is thriving, and surviving, through adaptation to inevitable changes. That's just life, no matter what you call someone else.

Well Tal the surviving and thriving bit I think we have done quite well thus far, and it is because we do things a little differently

Whatever works best for you!

Exactly Tal we will not always conform to your agenda, after all we are friends only

Hmm, I don't recall us asking you too. Did I miss something?

No but BO is right now

Back on the theme of the thread, and speak of blowing people up, I notice that coincidentially a senior figure in the Iranian missile program was killed in that recent explosion. Fortutitous how these things happen, and with the US new emphasis of assassination of its enemies could it be a BO foreign policy success? Or perhaps an Israeli foreign policy success?

Who can know what secrets governments have behind closed doors. I mean what would you expect the US to do when you have nations like IRAN, with influences that are tied to terrorist in MANY countries.

I mean a nuclear IRAN could scare a lot of people into kicking the crap out of them by whatever means they have. Mr. Obama HAS been trying to talk to them to no avail for 3 years.

They are NOT our friends, CLETE.

No but BO is right now

Back on the theme of the thread, and speak of blowing people up, I notice that coincidentially a senior figure in the Iranian missle program was killed in that recent explosion. Fortutitous how these things happen, and with the US new emphasis of assassination of its enemies could it be a BO foriegn policy success? or perhaps an Israeli foriegn policy success?

Here's hoping.

They are NOT our friends, CLETE.

Who suggested they were, but, once upon a time, long, long, ago, it was rumored that the rule of law was upper most in the mind of americans who would never assassinate their enemies, Obviously, your mind set is who cares. All it took for that rumor to disappear is for someone to shake your confidence in your own superiority. We have seen the enemy and it is US

So I guess you don't want us to kill our enemies who are trying to kill us HUH?

Our rule of law, in war allows for that and its not assassination, and we are not YOUR enemy, unless you are with OUR enemy.

When Australia has that kind of power, AND has powerful enemies then you may understand that concept. When Australia has made US an enemy, you will be the first to know, and some ex american who takes up with terrorists against us was not a rumor, nor did it shake our confidence.

And get your eyes checked while you are at it.

Tal don't twist it, I have no objection to you or US killing their/our enemies on the battlefield, but taking the cowards way is just making yourself like your enemy. For the record, Tal, we don't want the power to assassinate our enemies because those actions are what makes enemies. Our nation has no enemies because we don't interfere in other nations. The last direct enemy we had, you helped us see off but then they were your enemy too and you would have done that whether or no.

Had my eyes checked only last week Tal

Then I am confused Clete, who did we Assassinate?

Then I am confused Clete, who did we ASSASINATE??

Well let me see, we will start with OBL, a resident in an allied country, and then there was one of your own citizens, in Yemen, was it? And of course, there are those many people in Pakistan, where you couldn't tell whether they were actual enemies or not. Now there was a little explosion in Iran the other day, that coincidently took out a weapons expert, that one is unconfirmed. You have a team in central Africa right now, it will be iinteresting to see who they account for.

OBL was the leader of our sworn enemies Al-Quaida, you know, the ones that killed more than 3000 Americans, on 9/11, and the traitor in Yemen was his buddy, and WE knew they were the enemy, even if you didn't. That why they were TARGETED for something bad to happen to them.

Now there was a little explosion in Iran the other day, that coincidently took out a weapons expert, that one is unconfirmed.
So we wait for some confirmation.
Not make assumptions.

You have a team in central Africa right now, it will be iinteresting to see who they account for.
Making sure that UN food and supplies get to the ones they are intended for, not some rebels, and yes we are armed and will shoot if fired upon... DUH!

Hey whose side are YOU on, I wouldn't want you mistaken for a terrorist, or rebel that was going to steal food, or kill women and children in cold blood.

So don't get in the middle of a fight between two ENEMIES. It's a WAR for crissake, not a tea party, or debate.

It isn't a question of whether I know they are the enemy or not. In WWII you wouldn't assassinate Hitler the most evil man to ever walk the Earth but you would violate thesoveriegnty of a country you are not at war with to kill someone who only killed a mere 3000 people. I know the difference, he killed americans and they are worth more, right.

So don't get in the middle of a fight between two ENEMIES. Its a WAR for crissake, not a tea party, or debate.

This statement bothers me. When you mention war you act like all the lines are so clear a definite. We have had a war on drugs for many many years. Should we just start to assassinate those producing the drugs? After all they are far more responsible for more lives being ruined as well as deaths directly or indirectly. There are rules to war. If you choose not to follow them then you slip into the enemies mindset and become no better then your opponent. Is that what we want?

They are terrorist, they blow up planes and buildings, with car bombs and such. They hide among people.

Better ideas??

In WWII you wouldn't assassinate Hitler the most evil man to ever walk the Earth but you would violate thesoveriegnty of a country you are not at war with to kill someone who only killed a mere 3000 people. I know the difference, he killed americans and they are worth more, right.

Some facts are due here .
We did in fact assassinate Yamamoto . He was a military commander and a legitimate target. Hilter directly commanded the military of Germany making him a legitimate target.

What is this ? The Brits used to complain when the colonials would shoot at officers . Why should the leaders be exempt ? If I had my way they would be the only ones to fight.

I have yet to hear of 1 instance when anyone besides a legit military leaders was targeted by US drones or special ops .

I have yet to hear of 1 instance when anyone besides a legit military leaders was targetted by US drones or special ops .

Then your media have been very selective in reporting the hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan in recent years. Not all of those killed were "military" leaders or fighters, some were children.

Tom you need to get your head out of you know where and realise that things are not as you see them. The operations of your country are at times very black and whose country are you doing this in? Not your own. The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan did not attack the United States. Some extremists attacked the United States. They did it because you had a military presence in what they regarded as a sacred place. For ten years you have bombed the crap out of them, and maybe a few have been placed on trial or worse. The Taliban are not the communists, they have no interest in taking over the world, they just want you to leave.

They gave safe haven and support to Al Quaida, and they have there families with them. (how dumb is that) Sorry to sound cold, but that makes them all targets. We wouldn't be talking if they had left us alone, and NO we were not in afpak before 9/11.

Heck they would all be Russian satellites if we hadn't helped them way back when. You need a better cable news company.

There are no safe havens for those that attack us, NONE,so be careful who you invite for dinner. What part of that is confusing you?

No, Tal, you don't get it, we would not be talking if you had left them alone. I'm not saying OBL didn't need dealing with, but aggressive foreign policy is what caused all of this. It is not a recent development but a legacy

Don't know where you get your rhetoric from, but last I checked we haven't made any aggressive moves to people without good reason (OKay Iraq), so do you have some facts we can examine?

If you feel that way why not tell the prez to stay home?

I didn't say only those killed were military leaders. In WWII whole cities were wasted . Drone attacks by comparison are surgical.

I am frankly shocked that you defend the Taliban . They were told of the consequences when they refused to hand over OBL .

Where I agree with you is that we have to rethink this notion that Pakistan is an ally. Me ;I'd tell India it's OK the unleash the kraken.

Pakistan let us have access through their country for cash, so its business rather than allies united for a common goal.

I am frankly shocked that you defend the Taliban . They were told of the consequences when they refused to hand over OBL .

Where I agree with you is that we have to rethink this notion that Pakistan is an ally. Me ;I'd tell India it's ok the unleash the kraken.

Shocked, you should be mortified. You are unable to see you are ensnared in a web of your own making. The Taliban were a soveriegn nation, why should they bow to your threats. They said provide evidence and all you provided was rhetoric. Stop behaving like the bully on the block. You attacked a backward nation thinking them a pushover, you think instant they think generationally, this why ten years on you don't have victory. Now I admit the Taliban are extremist and it is better they don't govern but that is not your call.

Why would you side with India? Or Pakistan for that matter? If you had met the people over there you would not say what you did, they are not responsible for what their government does. Those governments over there are even more corrupt than your own. At least you don't have criminals leading the country

Shocked, you should be mortified. You are unable to see you are ensnared in a web of your own making. The Taliban were a soveriegn nation, why should they bow to your threats. They said provide evidence and all you provided was rhetoric. Stop behaving like the bully on the block. You attacked a backward nation thinking them a pushover, you think instant they think generationally, this why ten years on you don't have victory. Now I admit the Taliban are extremist and it is better they don't govern but that is not your call. Have you forgotten Vietnam?

Why would you side with India? or Pakistan for that matter? If you had met the people over there you would not say what you did, they are not responsible for what their government does. Those governments over there are even more corrupt than your own. At least you don't have criminals leading the country aaaa

We got what we came for, time to go home, we can always come back if we have to. And for the record, the taliban is not a sovereign nation, but a tribe within a sovereign nation. We didn't attack Afghanistan, but the tribes that harbored our enemies with the help, and cooperation of other tribes friendly to us.

Osama is dead, Al Qaida scattered and leaderless, mission accomplished, going home. There is no safe haven for anyone who attacks us, not even on your island paradise. Not taking crap from religious idealogs isn't bulling, and what part of don't mess with us is so hard to understand?

We didn't attack Afghanistan, but the tribes that harbored our enemies with the help, and cooperation of other tribes friendly to us.

Osama is dead, Al Qaida scattered and leaderless, mission accomplished, going home. There is no safe haven for anyone who attacks us, not even on your island paradise. Not taking crap from religious idealogs isn't bulling, and what part of don't mess with us is so hard to understand?

Tough talk but the reality is you did attack Afghanistan, not some misguided individuals. Yes, Al Quaeda in Afghanistan is a shadow of its former self, that much you accomplished, but in the process you awakened a slumbering people who have seen off invaders before and you managed to piss off an allied nation. It is apparent how little you think of your allies with your we rule you fool attitude. It seem s you have managed to piss the afghans off too
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/16/world/asia/afghanistan-meeting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Let me say this, Tal, we would fight you just as fiercely if you attempted the same thing here

LOL, so you think we don't have allies in Afghanistan? What about the thousand of Afghanis, Pakistanis killed by their own enemies, who are countrymen? This conflict has been going on for centuries before the colonials tried to colonize this region. The Taliban had many enemies before we got there, and will have as many after we leave. No Clete, your assertion hold no water, especially the one about them being backward. They are anything but, as though they don't have your level of sophistication, or lifestyle they are an old society, with rich traditions and culture the dates back thousands of years.

I won't even comment on how fierce you guys would fight if we invade your island, a humorous thought at best, but what's funnier, what have you done to us and what do you have we need to take, rather than just buy it??

LOL, so you think we don't have allies in Afghanistan?? What about the thousand of Afghanis, Pakistanis killed by their own enemies, who are countrymen? This conflict has been going on for centuries before the colonials tried to colonize this region. The Taliban had many enemies before we got there, and will have as many after we leave. No Clete, your assertion hold no water, especially the one about them being backward. They are anything but, as though they don't have your level of sophistication, or lifestyle they are an old society, with rich traditions and culture the dates back thousands of years.

I won't even comment on how fierce you guys would fight if we invade your island, a humorous thought at best, but whats funnier, what have you done to us and what do you have we need to take, rather than just buy it???

I don't think you have the money to buy it anymore Tal, by the way the Chinese have tried that and failed. Like all colonialists you think your superior forces count for something. You should remember the lesson of your own revolution, the lesson of Vietnam and the lesson you are being handed in Afghanistan. A determined people is worth much more than foreign invaders. Your view of the Taliban is twisted, the Taliban are an invention of the Pakistan ISS with a little help from the americans, very recent history, and you should remember how effective they were against the Russians. The Pakistanis have no interest in killing the Taliban, just keeping them in their place and even the Pakistani's speak of them as being backward so I take my information from the locals, not the yokels

So you know of the Northern Alliance and how we supplied them with arms against the Russians?

You didn't answer the question though, what do you have that we would have to invade you to get, instead of just buying it on the market?

Don't be offended if we don't see you as a threat, and we do rent land for our strategic interests. As we do with Pakistan. Sorry Clete, I just see no reason you feel threatened by us?

You can't be jealous since your island is the shining glory of the human race. Oh wait, I get it, you think our president visiting you is an invasion?? Kind of paranoid that idea.

So you know of the Northern Alliance and how we supplied them with arms against the Russians?

You didn't answer the question though, what do you have that we would have to invade you to get, instead of just buying it on the market?

Don't be offended if we don't see you as a threat, and we do rent land for our strategic interests. As we do with Pakistan. Sorry Clete, I just see no reason you feel threatened by us?

You can't be jealous since your island is the shining glory of the human race. Oh wait, I get it, you think our president visiting you is an invasion??????? Kind of paranoid that idea.

Don't be silly, Tal, your own president has said that america has no greater friend (and ally) than Australia. When I hear that kind of B/S I cringe, what does he really want? This visit by BO is in danger of becoming the non-event of the century, I can't even get a text of his address to parliament, nothing new there, I guess. What I found interesting was there was no welcome to country by the aboriginal community, that is almost obligatory these days. I guess they were confused and did it at the President's Cup opening

Yes, I remember the northern alliance in Afghanistan, on its last legs until the action of Al Qaeda and then an opportunistic america helped them out, and hey presto, a new democracy was birthed in a rain of bombs and ruled by war lords and influence peddlers. You might remember how useful your new found friends were in capturing OBL

We don't threaten anyone Tal. We could have developed nuclear weapons way back when, but we made a strategic decision long before it was popular not to, doesn't mean we aren't nuclear capable, but you can't have too many dirty jobs to do, you haven't called on us for an escalated commitment recently. Don't worry, we'll be there should you need a friend, doesn't mean we agree with you.

While we are speaking we may need some help enforcing freedom of determination for West Papua, are you up for it? 250 marines should do it

You didn't answer the question though, what do you have that we would have to invade you to get, instead of just buying it on the market?

US to station troops in northern Australia as fears of China's Pacific presence grow (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2806636/posts)

Surely you have a few good men of your own?

You didn't answer the question though, what do you have that we would have to invade you to get, instead of just buying it on the market?

US to station troops in northern Australia as fears of China's Pacific presence grow (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2806636/posts)

Surely you have a few good men of your own?

Sure do, Tal, we are rotating them through Afghanistan and Timor Leste at the moment, sort of helping you out, you know. Just as we are helping you out by hosting 2500 marines for six months each year. I guess you don't want to get your feet wet.

That statement you made about China is in direct contradiction of your president who says he doesn't fear China, said it both yesterday and today, just to reassure himself I guess, because you didn't hear him.

I'll answer that question with this
How would your life compare? Australia vs US where it counts | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/how-would-your-life-compare-australia-vs-us-where-it-counts/story-e6frfkvr-1226196606062)
Please read it fully and answer the survey at the end

I am sure it's a lovely place. So is the US.

Not to worry though, we won't let China spoil it. Super Powers often engage in chess games.

China won't spoil it Tal and we won't let you either. Your view of China is wrong. For thousands of years their focus has been on strengthening their borders. They have suffered greatly over centuries from invaders, so naturally they are a little paranoid and could easily misintrepret BO's posturing.

We too play chess

China guards its borders well, but that doesn't stop them from leveraging their influence in other countries at all. Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia. I understand a country serving its own interest. We all have our issues to solve.

Tal's view of China is right on. Clete you must have blinders on ;or your press is suppressing the quick expansion of the Chinese blue water fleet . You think that is being built to defend it's litoral waters ?
You know the history of your region. A nation that is expansionist needs to secure resources and defend it's supply route . That is why the Japanese looked south . Australia my not be directly in the path of the string of pearls... but it is in your interest to help them defend their sovereignty . You don't strike me as an appeaser ( someone who feeds the crocodile and hopes it will eat him last ).

tal's view of China is right on. Clete you must have blinders on ;or your press is supressing the quick expansion of the Chinese blue water fleet . You think that is being built to defend it's litoral waters ?
You know the history of your region. A nation that is expansionist needs to secure resources and defend it's supply route . That is why the Japanese looked south . Australia my not be directly in the path of the string of pearls ... but it is in your interest to help them defend their sovereignty . You don't strike me as an appeaser ( someone who feeds the crocodile and hopes it will eat him last ).

Strikes me, Tom, that the US has been feeding the crocodiles for years and what we have found is when you feed the crocodiles they grow bigger. Being particularly familiar with crocodiles we know them to be territorial. Every nation is entitled to have a blue water fleet, we have had one for years ourselves. You may not have piracy in US waters but the South China Sea is renown for there being problems for shipping. You never know, it maybe the Chinese want to stop people escaping their paradise. Or it may be it sees Taiwan as a threat that needs to be neutralised or at least brought out of the fold of US influence.

You never know, it maybe the Chinese want to stop people escaping their paradise. Or it may be it sees Taiwan as a threat that needs to be neutralised or at least brought out of the fold of US influence.

You mean they want to conquer Tawian don't you ?

No ,their new surface to ship missiles are designed to make it too dangerous for the US fleet to screen Taiwan. The only reason for them to have a blue water fleet is to extend and secure their energy sources and to threaten their neighbors . They are clear that they consider the South China sea ;the Yellow Sea as their lakes ;and the inner and outer island rings of islands their territory . They recently brazenly forwarded the proposition that they have territorial claim of Okinawa .

Deny it all you want... it's the facts and one of the prime reasons your government wants us based there.

Now I can almost guarantee that given the geology and sometimes peculiar weather on that side of the world ;the primary purpose for us there will be to assist or lead humanitarian efforts . Still ,you'll sleep better at night knowing US Marines man the walls .

You mean they want to conquer Tawian don't ya ?

No ,their new surface to ship missiles are designed to make it too dangerous for the US fleet to screen Taiwan. The only reason for them to have a blue water fleet is to extend and secure their energy sources and to threaten their neighbors . They are clear that they consider the South China sea ;the Yellow Sea as their lakes ;and the inner and outer island rings of islands their territory . They recently brazenly forwarded the proposition that they have territorial claim of Okinawa .

Deny it all you want ....it's the facts and one of the prime reasons why your government wants us based there.

Now I can almost guarantee that given the geology and sometimes peculiar weather on that side of the world ;the primary purpose for us there will be to assist or lead humanitarian efforts . Still ,you'll sleep better at night knowing US Marines man the walls .

As I said, foolish talk abounds... the chinese could conquer Taiwan any time they want to, but they have measured the cost and accepted that Taiwan, with a foot in the west, offers them economic advantages, not the least of which is investment on mainland China. China has a long history and part of that appears to be a philosopy of regaining all the ancient lands that were part of China. Sort of like the Jews laying claim to Palistine and then laying claim to Goshen.

No doubt the Japanese think they have ancestoral claims to Korea too but that is a horse of a different colour.

Tom I don't sleep any better knowing the US has a foothold on Australian soil. It makes our neighbours nervious. Our forces in the north are adequate for the defence of Australia, there being no eminent threat. We always saw Pine Gap and the Cape as frontline targets back in the cold war days and all you have done is painted a target on Darwin. I noted with interest your announcement of your new weapon which demonstrates you don't need troops in forward bases to make an effective strike.

What will be interesting will be the response to the freedom movement in West Papua, will your 2,500 marines do their humanitarian work there?
We did the hard yards in Timor Leste, this might be your turn to show what you are worth. You want to be engaged in the Pacific, here is your big chance. Since your own fair land has more than its share of disasters, I cannot see why they would not be more useful at home.

You think we want you based here? What? A piddling force of 2,500? For six months of the year? What would that achieve in a real conflict? This is all about tokenism and gunboat diplomacy and the little red fox is using her new found bosum friend, she doesn't have many here, to give her an electoral shove. It is just that this sort of thinking that will get her a shove out the door. It is also about giving you the excuse to develop the bases you are using here

And 60% of your trading partners including China are within the Chinese sphere of influence.

Hate to see your exports in danger due to their proclivity for some shady trading practices, and have attempted to rig the markets more in their favor. Do you have a trade deficit with CHINA? YET?

Hate to see your exports in danger due to their proclivity for some shady trading practices, and have attempted to rig the markets more in their favor. Do you have a trade deficit with CHINA? YET?

Trade between Australia and China is a two way street, two lanes out of Australia and one back. For this reason Chinese cars are now sold on the Australian market, the Chinese are conscious the balance is in our favour.

Please don't judge us by american standards, your decline has done us a lot of harm in the trading terms just as your inventive trade practices did us a lot of harm earlier. We have a saying "what goes around comes around" and so now it is our turn to prosper from chinese sales to america. It is most fortunate your multinationals did not get their hands on our export industries. Amazing with all your business acumin you didn't see it coming

Now I can almost guarantee that given the geology and sometimes peculiar weather on that side of the world ;the primary purpose for us there will be to assist or lead humanitarian efforts

Pull the other one will you? It plays DIXIE

China has not indicated they want your help, Japan did not want your help, have you made a recent effort to help out in the Philippines? Are you helping in Thailand now? Just who is you intend to help with B52 bombers? With 2,500 marines stationed here part time?

Run for president or Prime minister or whatever you call it and send us packing.

But all due respect, we are hardly anywhere in the world without invitation, the only exceptions being where we have some very bitter enemies. They sound like you but they have real guns, and actually kill people.

If you don't want help say so, but don't speak for any one else but yourself. The japanese, and the Tai's can speak for themselves. The Chinese WILL speak for themselves too, and if you don't like our trade ways, don't trade with us. We do have other options.

And don't throw rocks at out marines, they are crack shots. Have you ever met an American? Or is your poison from the papers? Just curious where your hate comes from.

Pull the other one will you? it plays DIXIE

China has not indicated they want your help, Japan did not want your help, have you made a recent effort to help out in the Phillipines? A you helping in Thailand now? Just who is you intend to help with B52 bombers? With 2,500 marines stationed here part time?

All I have to say about that is Dec 26,2004 . Who's military assets were 1st on the scene providing aid long before the UN finished their breakfast .

And don't throw rocks at out marines, they are crack shots. Have you ever met an American? Or is your poison from the papers? Just curious where your hate comes from.

Yes I have met americans and they are just as opiniated as you are, so sure of their own righteousness. My hate goes back to the first american who abused me and attempted to make me feel insignificant in my own country, Big mouth, big ego, it intensified, when in a time of rampant inflation, the wise minds in america would not allow the company I worked for to increase salaries to match market value because in their narrow view we were being paid more than they were. I have worked for american companies and I know only too well how they regard the locals. You want to know why I don't like you, it is because of your actions towards Australians

all I have to say about that is Dec 26,2004 . Who's military assets were 1st on the scene providing aid long before the UN finished their breakfast .

Tom you have a very narrow view of help, let's review some recent performance shall we, what about Haiti? Have they received the promised aid yet? Your efforts in international aid are well below the efforts of other nations but you can say we have this combat ready group just waiting for an opportunity to help you

I am not interested in what the UN does, it is an impotent organisation and can only do what the members give it the resources to do

Before and after the quake,the US has been by far the biggest donor ,both public and private ,to Haiti since 1973 . Short of a takeover, most of it is ,and will continue to be wasted, because despite our best efforts ,Haiti is a failed state.

Yes I have met americans and they are just as opiniated as you are, so sure of their own righteousness. My hate goes back to the first american who abused me and attempted to make me feel insignificant in my own country, Big mouth, big ego, it intensified, when in a time of rampant inflation, the wise minds in america would not allow the company I worked for to increase salaries to match market value because in their narrow view we were being paid more than they were. I have worked for american companies and I know only too well how they regard the locals. You want to know why I don't like you, it is because of your actions towards Australians

Don't be mad at Americans, we too have a problem with American corporations. Why do you think they ran to your island? So WE couldn't get OUR raises that we deserved!

Your hatred is palatable, and comes across loud and clear. Unfortunately, I feel its misdirected.

Don't be mad at Americans, we too have a problem with American corporations. Why do you think they ran to your island? So WE couldn't get OUR raises that we deserved!

Your hatred is palatable, and comes across loud and clear. Unfortunately, I feel its misdirected.

What sort of strange excuse is that? They came here to cheat you. Don't think this is a low cost country, it isn't, they came here to sell their products or to extract their royalties for their technology and when it didn't work the way they would like because this isn't the "states", they run a manager from the states in to foul things up even more. You talk about this being an island as if it is insignificant, this place is the size of the continential US, any place I want to go is distant

How would you like me to direct my opinion? If I could change your outlook on the world I would

My outlook on the world is we are at WAR, an idelogical one, a new world order, against the old world order. It crosses borders, oceans, and cultures. Its happening through out the world, and pits us against each other in the classic divide and conquer through hatred. Step back from the hate and see if we are having a common problem, is all I will ask of you. Not trying to change your outlook, just want to know what you see without your hate.

My outlook on the world is we are at WAR, an idelogical one, a new world order, against the old world order. It crosses borders, oceans, and cultures. Its happening thru out the world, and pits us against each other in the classic divide and conquer thru hatred. Step back from the hate and see if we are having a common problem, is all I will ask of you. Not trying to change your outlook, just want to know what you see without your hate.

Where did you get these ideas? A new world order? One world government. A euphenism for capitalist domination ruled by one country. We certainly don't want to go down that road any more than we wanted to go down the communist road. I see the common problem but I think we stand on opposite sides of it. I don't want the new world order where we are all lackeys of the capitalist system, it sounds like the old world order repackaged to me.

The Fabianists have wanted a new world order for a long time, strangely George W Bush spoke about an new world order and who knows he may have been a fabianist. These guys are dangerous because what they do isn't for the benefit of the little guy but to boost their own power and authority. Tal there is no utopia at the end of the road. What we all hope for is dignity, security and a reasonable income. I live in a society where that is possible without riping anyoneelse off. You think I hate but hate leads to violence and I am not a violent person. I intensely dislike any person, nation, etc that places itself above the rest of us and seeks to inject its will into places it does not belong. I also like to laugh at the ridiculous writhings of the system. It is part of the Australian ethos to take the mickey out of the tall poppies, this can be construed as hatred by some and for the record I don't like PC

Where did you get these ideas? a new world order? one world government. a euphenism for capitalist domination ruled by one country. We certainly don't want to go down that road any more than we wanted to go down the communist road. I see the common problem but I think we stand on opposite sides of it. I don't want the new world order where we are all lackeys of the capitalist system, it sounds like the old world order repackaged to me.

The Fabianists have wanted a new world order for a long time, strangely George W Bush spoke about an new world order and who knows he may have been a fabianist. These guys are dangerous because what they do isn't for the benefit of the little guy but to boost their own power and authority. Tal there is no utopia at the end of the road. What we all hope for is dignity, security and a reasonable income. I live in a society where that is possible without riping anyoneelse off. You think I hate but hate leads to violence and I am not a violent person. I intensely dislike any person, nation, etc that places itself above the rest of us and seeks to inject its will into places it does not belong. I also like to laugh at the rediculous writhings of the system. It is part of the Australian ethos to take the mickey out of the tall poppies, this can be construed as hatred by some and for the record I don't like PC

DAMN IF I DON'T AGREE!! You ain't the only one who doesn't like to be screwed over. :eek: You sound like part of the 99% to me!! :eek:

In some regards unfortunately there are many Fabians in the
Republic establishment. But the Bush freedom agenda was right on. Where I dispute him was where he did those compromises that tal loves so much that brought us the largest expansion in the entitlement called Medicare ;the largest Federal government intrusion of states authority in education ;and he continued the Clintoon policy of encouraging the expansion of the real estate bubble .

in some regards unfortunately there are many Fabians in the
repubic establishment. But the Bush freedom agenda was right on. Where I dispute him was where he did those compromises that tal loves so much that brought us the largest expansion in the entitlement called Medicare ;the largest Federal government intrusion of states authority in education ;and he continued the Clintoon policy of encouraging the expansion of the real estate bubble .

DAMN, if I don't agree! Hated the part D which wasn't paid for and made life hard for the seniors and forced them into the free market for drugs, at inflated prices.

And all that cheating to get the numbers to look good for a test the states paid for.

And letting those greedy bankers and real estate companies, team up with the ratings agency to defraud millions and extract all the freakin' money in the world, and throw this country into chaos and misinformation, and then blame the janitor who is trying to clean the mess up, and the dems who came after repubs.

Careful Tom, I might have to join the TEA PARTY, Naw, I ain't that mad. Just amused that you repubs wrecked the car and want to drive again.

Well there you go. No Tal I'm not a millionaire but I don't need to be. Money changes your perspective

HEEEEEELP, The conservatives have GOT me, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhh! :eek:

Yeh they will do that. Hey I'm a conservative part of the time, I like the pace of change to be ordered and intelligent, not chaotic grabbing at the latest idea and calling it gospel, but there must also be social responsibility, we are all in this boat together and those on the upper decks have to have responsibility for those on the lower decks

HEEEEEEELP, the liberals have gotten Clete! Heeeelp!! :eek:

Not at all, I am opposed to out and out socialism, but there are some things that need to be done and should be done. I think the boundries are more blurred here than they are there. Your Tea Party would be considered far right here somewhere right of One Nation, which was opposed to just about everything, however you have nothing equivalent to our Labor and Greens which are a long way left of centre. Our Liberal party which is considered conservative would be equivalent to some of your democrats, so as a nation we are fairly well signed on to social responsibility

You guys and gals think I'm fairly cynical about america, hell I'm cynical about what much of my own people do and say, but here is what one of your own has to say
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/americans-have-no-empathy-20111120-1np1w.html

Social responsibility is a projection by someone about how much someone else should contribute.

But consensus of opinion is what makes policy, and rules. Or at least it should in my opinion.

But consensus of opinion is what makes policy, and rules. Or at least it should in my opinion.


That's been the death of many a democracy. Fortunately we have the Constitution to guard against the tyranny of the majority .

Yes but nothing is guarding you against the tyranny of the majority in your congress unless it is the use of Executive Orders.

Tell me Tom is it a democratic majority you fear so much?

yes but nothing is guarding you against the tyranny of the majority in your congress unless it is the use of Executive Orders.

Tell me Tom is it a democratic majority you fear so much?

Republicans are happy only when it's a republican majority. Nothing else makes them happy.

that's been the death of many a democracy. Fortunately we have the Constitution to guard against the tyranny of the majority .

Hi Tom,

Here is an example of tyranny of the majority.

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chanber.html?pagewanted=all



The Constitution encourages this type of behaviour.


Tut

Hi Tom,

Here is an example of tyranny of the majority.

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chanber.html?pagewanted=all



The Constitution encourages this type of behaviour.


Tut



Link not working. Can you post it again ?




Page Not Found

We're sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don't want to lose you.
Check the Archives. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive. 1851 – present.
Report the broken link. If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

Link not working. Can you post it again ?





Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html?scp=1&sq=top) corporations aid chamber of

So what does that tell you? That lobbying by corporations should be limited, so that they are reigned it.
This is what you get, no money for new jobs but plenty of money to thwart government policy, sort of tells you that the reason employment isn't growing isn't the market but a deliberate political strategy

And here I thought they were the 1 %.. You guys got to work on your message. If they are the 1% then how could they be the tyranny of the majority ?

BTW ;FINREG is ridiculous legislation that needs to be repealed .

Because the majority are stupid enough to think that what these guys feed them is a good idea. Do you count yourself among the majority, Tom, or are you part of the 1%?

and here I thought they were the 1 % ..You guys gotta work on your message. If they are the 1% then how could they be the tyranny of the majority ?

BTW ;FINREG is rediculous legislation that needs to be repealed .

Tom, please giver me a harder question than that. Representative democracy is not working for you. In its basic form representative democracy means that you vote for someone who is going to represent your interests.

How much more evidence do you need to see that representative democracy is working for the multinationals. We may have put politicians in office in the first place but we know where their loyalties can be found.

Tut

Funny thing is I never vote for any candidate based on how much money is in their campaign war chest . I don't know anyone who votes that way.

This is a big country and for a candidate to get their message to the public costs lots of money. Who's to pay for it ? The public through their taxes ? Why should my money go to a candidate I would never vote for ?

Who decides how public money is distributed ? I guarantee that public funding would be incumbent job insurance. Already there is too much incumbency ;but at least there is a chance that a challenger can win if they can finance their campaign.

BTW ;I should not have to explain 'tyranny of the majority to you . It is there in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and Mill.

Funny thing is I never vote for any candidate based on how much money is in their campaign war chest . I don't know anyone who votes that way.

This is a big country and for a candidate to get their message to the public costs lots of money. Who's to pay for it ? The public through their taxes ? Why should my money go to a candidate I would never vote for ?

Who decides how public money is distributed ? I guarantee that public funding would be incumbent job insurance. Already there is too much incumbency ;but at least there is a chance that a challenger can win if they can finance their campaign.

BTW ;I should not have to explain 'tyranny of the majority to you . It is there in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and Mill.

That's what they have, Tut, the tyanny of the majority. Interesting is that majority is very thin about 1%. Tom tries to justify this by saying it was ever so, but in the past the representatives weren't held in thrawl by lobby's. If you want your democracy back decouple campaign funding from contributions.

The great distinction between them and us is that we have the tyanny of the minority, but that's what we get for adapting their constitution for our purposes.

Funny thing is I never vote for any candidate based on how much money is in their campaign war chest . I don't know anyone who votes that way.



No, I would want to know where the money comes from in the first place.




This is a big country and for a candidate to get their message to the public costs lots of money. Who's to pay for it ? The public through their taxes ? Why should my money go to a candidate I would never vote for




Who said anything about public funding?

This issue can be addressed in detail. You seem to be always stuck in a one or the other mode. Not (A) doesn't necessarily mean we are stuck with (B).




Who decides how public money is distributed ? I guarantee that public funding would be incumbent job insurance. Already there is too much incumbency ;but at least there is a chance that a challenger can win if they can finance their campaign.




Again, who said anything about public money.





BTW ;I should not have to explain 'tyranny of the majority to you . It is there in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and Mill.


I wouldn't worry about Plato and Aristotle, we all know where they were coming from.

By Mill I assume you mean J.S. Mill. Read Mill's famous essay,'On liberty'. You will see this abuse of representative democracy is exactly the point I am making.

Tut