America WILL NOT protect us.

[skippy]

What we need is a defence force,not an invasion force, that is where Howard blew it.

[helian]

'You can have democracy or you can keep your empire. You can't have both' - Chalmers Johnson

Looks like the American people are opting for democracy.

[Jovial Monk]

Hey, good to see you Helian!

Stirred up Sheepy anymore about Joh's body/American Psycho?

[JW Frogen]

'You can have democracy or you can keep your empire. You can't have both' - Chalmers Johnson

Looks like the American people are opting for democracy.

Jefferson opted for both when he bought the French North American empire, the US has been pulling both off ever since. No reason to stop now, especially if the other democracies in the world want to remain so.

[helian]

'You can have democracy or you can keep your empire. You can't have both' - Chalmers Johnson

Looks like the American people are opting for democracy.

Jefferson opted for both when he bought the French North American empire, the US has been pulling both off ever since. No reason to stop now, especially if the other democracies in the world want to remain so.

No doubt most of us would like to keep the status quo. But let's see what the outcome will be as the cost of maintaining armies and US influence over foreign nations while China and India continue their rapid rise as military super powers that rival or exceed the US. The cost of defeating stronger and more well equiped resistance will probably rise tangentially over the next few years which will mean for the US bloodier and more expensive war.

But if they can just be there to subvert the possible Taliban overthrow of the Pakistani state... we'll all be grateful... Won't ask any more of them... for now.

[Jubial Priest]

Pity the Paki's can't do their own dirty work, but I'm sure you lot will be there to rain down with your piss parade on anyone who doesn't do everything according to the lefty brigade.

[skippy]

Pity the Paki's can't do their own dirty work, but I'm sure you lot will be there to rain down with your piss parade on anyone who doesn't do everything according to the lefty brigade.

Piss off deepy/iqsrlow, I thought you never lowered yourself to trolling here,whats up? need some lovin? why not drop in and see your whore bag nef, I'll bet she's an ugly bitch just like you.
Do you like the scrawny little whores? she's a size 8 you know, but she's also very common, buys her jeans from just jeans, sooooooooooo penrith.

[JW Frogen]

No doubt most of us would like to keep the status quo. But let's see what the outcome will be as the cost of maintaining armies and US influence over foreign nations while China and India continue their rapid rise as military super powers that rival or exceed the US. The cost of defeating stronger and more well equiped resistance will probably rise tangentially over the next few years which will mean for the US bloodier and more expensive war.

The cost in economic terms certainly will rise to contain China, (though it might never reach Cold War levels as China is not really an ideological power like the former Soviet Union, seeking to export her system everywhere, she is a narrow nationalistic power, seeking to import economic benefit to her), and so the US will have to advocate a grand alliance, re-arming Japan and most importantly of all seeking closer military ties with India.

Both those democracies fear China far more than the US. Indeed, it can be argued that the US had a sort of Pollyanna belief that China’s market liberalization (not trade liberalization, she has never done that) would create a middle class that would force the one party state to democratize, this has turned out to be false. Indeed China is becoming more nationalistic. Look at their hypersensitive response to the very mild and limited protests over Tibet during the Olympics. And notice their immediate and shameless default on the pre-Olympic promises not to stifle such dissent.

There can also, as in the Cold War, be smaller alliances containing China. One intriguing case is Vietnam, who really fears China having been attacked by her directly after the US was expelled during the Vietnam War.

None of this means that military confrontation with China must happen, but it is far less likely if China knows there is a military (not economic) containment alliance in place, making the cost of aggressive Chinese action in the East Pacific too costly.

[mantra.]

None of this means that military confrontation with China must happen, but it is far less likely if China knows there is a military (not economic) containment alliance in place, making the cost of aggressive Chinese action in the East Pacific too costly.

Our export of uranium to China has increased rapidly over the last couple of years so it seems a little contradictory that we supply China with the means to annihilate us, yet build up a defense against her. According to this article - physical force could be unnecessary.

Australia is currently borrowing $500 million per week from Beijing. If the worsening economic crisis causes Australia to become dependent on China for the refinancing of our nation's $658 billion net foreign debt (about 60 per cent of our GDP), then Beijing may well demand a controlling interest in Rio Tinto in exchange.

Together, these concessions to Beijing would draw Australia out of the Western alliance and into China's orbit.

As a nation [Australia] seems likely to play a role to assist China and the US reconcile their differences. At the same time, China has superior air, sea and land defence capability to Australia and in a decade or two may emerge as our 'protector' because they need to safeguard their raw material supply lines and because the US appears to be in decline.

"Australians will not find it easy to see China taking the role that Britain and the US took, but within two decades it is a distinct possibility. Accordingly, a deal between Rio Tinto and Chinalco could be in Australia's long term interests ...".

To propose that China become this nation's new protector, and that Australia should resign itself to being financially dependent on Beijing, would be to surrender Australia's independence to the world's last major Communist dictatorship, which has scant regard for universal human rights, democracy, private property or personal freedom.

Investment from China comes with far more political strings than came with Japanese investment in Australian energy and minerals industries in the 1970s and '80s. Japan has been for decades a democracy and respects human rights. While its economy is a mixture of state capitalism and free enterprise, it respects the right to private property

In his articles, Gottliebsen says that Chinalco is less interested in what percentage of shares it holds in Rio, as in the myriad of operating agreements that would deliver a high level of control to this Chinese government-owned company.

He says that "control" is the main game, focused on an incredible web of agreements covering every aspect of the key operations of Rio Tinto - production, marketing, strategy, executive performance, provision of interest-bearing capital and board representation.

While Beijing seeks mercantilist control of vital foreign mineral and energy resources, it is curtailing foreign ownership of its own domestic major companies.

Under recently revamped rules, China now restricts or prohibits investment in industries it has already mastered (like toys, furniture, shoes and clothing) or in industries with high usage of resources or energy (like steel, aluminium, paper, cement and other basic industries).

Australia's net foreign debt is now $658 billion (about 60 per cent of our GDP), while the gross foreign debt has reached $1.1 trillion.

As the global economic crisis deepens, Australia's creditors may be unwilling to keep rolling over this debt. Much of the foreign debt that Australia has incurred, via its major banks, is short-term, i.e., it must be repaid within 12 months.

China has accumulated over US$1 trillion in savings from its huge trade surpluses with the US, and holds another US$2 trillion in domestic savings.

As News Weekly warned in its Strategic Report, a foreign debt crisis could see Australia become dependent on borrowing from capital-rich China. This is already happening.

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2 ... over2.html

[JW Frogen]

China has been loath to use her Australian or even American debt as economic leverage in areas not directly concerned with such debt, but it is a possibility.

Once again collective alliances can contain this, this time a collective debt alliance, where democratic countries combine their debt policy in regard to China. So for instance if China gets heavy handed using debt as an extortion tool, both the US and Australia can state they will collectively default. (A US default alone would destroy the Chinese economy.)

No economic concessions should be granted to China concerning mineral ownership, nor is such and economic appeasement policy needed.

Nuclear weapons (unless they find their way into the hands of Islamo Fascist terrorists) are really superpower containment options, they would not be used against Australia, and even a crumbling economic power can maintain an effective nuclear deterrence, as the Russia did in the 90s, so the US superiority in this regard will hold and deter China for decades to come.