|
open24hours posted:What does aligning ourselves with our Asian neighbours even mean? Trying to read up on it most of what's out there seems to be extended platitudes about how we need to be 'modern' (apparently aligning ourselves with China is modern?) or about how we need to be closer to Asia because it's the 'Asian Century'. We won't know until we actually engage with their cultures and aspirations and keep playing the arms-length buzzword bingo. It's not a simple matter of enjoying their cuisine, going to their holiday destinations, or forming business partnerships to funnel money overseas to avoid domestic tax. And given we've got no loving idea what culture is except for being white, that engagement looks far away. As Cartoon suggests, it will take massive demographic change first before we realize we're already aligned.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
The Loon Pond is a blog which often reads what I dare not, and here's some fun infighting between the Lib shill press: Why this anguish? Because Blot has Peta Credlin on his show being all chummy and wise.  They're not giving up, not these little black ducks. Thank god.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:I assume bolt is just hoping Peta can help bring down Turnbull same as she helped Abbott out? I mean he must now that Abbott and Peta are as politically poisonous as each other. Blot is firmly in the Abbot Wuz Robbed camp, so its birds of a feather really. Just imagine the fun of these guys complaining about the Budget then ever election policy, then imagine how this will play to the electorate. It's pure gold.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
open24hours posted:blotquote Commentary: On the one hand we did buy a bunch of French planes and they crashed a lot (seriously, look up the stats on the RAAF Mirages, we lost something like 16 aircraft in crashes), but I don't think that was intentional, it was just cheap at the time. On the other hand the French don't really care how we use their subs as much as Blot claims, the US only wants us to buy broken planes and not the good ones, and demands trade treaties and bases as well. So LOOK FRANCE DOES TOTALLY EVIL poo poo is a bit rich coming from a US cheerleader. I mean, how dare they have an opinion which could hurt themselves financially too, right? Caving into British threats oh noes. I'll deal with that below. Then Blot goes on to whine about various parts of the deal like that's never happened with any other defence deals and similar caveats wouldn't happen with the Japanese deal if they'd had a clue and were bastards like the French and US. It's pitiful. Sure we're going to war against China and "muslim countries", totally gonna happen and then Blot will remind us he told us so. I'm also not aware of multiple submarine suppliers we can go to in case the dastardly French stand us up during some mythical conflict Blot just made up to whine about a deal he disagrees with to pass the time of day and earn media mouth bucks, but maybe I'm wrong and he just knows the US would have heaps of spares we can buy for a reasonable price honest. Here's several things Blot doesn't understand about defence deals: * They always lose money, for the buyer and seller often equally. France was renowned for undercutting competitors for its Mirages by literally halving the price, but see below. Arms dealers are worse than drug dealers, it's all about getting the addict on the hook. * It's never frontline tech, no one's stupid enough to sell a weapon that can be used against them without a way to nullify that threat. The F35 is shaping up to be its own nullification. But this also covers the situation where the tech simply becomes outdated. The whole point of arms dealers is to hedge on this rather than build your own. 9/10 times, you get it wrong. * The money is in the parts. Like so many things, like parts for your car, the aftermarket is where they clean up. This is typically where France has wielded its power. But this is common to other arms dealers, the US and the British and the Russians have all applied the same arm-twisting. * It's always broken. Rare exceptions like the Exocet missile prove the rule. But given how incompetent we are at building our own stuff, we're probably ahead by not buying US this time around.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
hooman posted:I know we've had this discussion before but why do we even have a war footing submarine fleet? There are a slew of articles about the submarine arms race currently going on in Asia, but I did read one some months ago that contrasts with buying terrible US planes for Australia. Reasons why subs are good for Australia are similar to those for Asian countries: * They're cost-effective. It can be cheaper to build subs or buy them than a fleet of planes. And they're multi-functional, from intelligence to weaponry to border-protection. * They're a good deterrent. As mentioned here, they're harder to track, they can be anywhere, and a sub with a nuclear missile or just a bunch of powerful conventional ones is quite the problem in that regard. For small Asian countries, its the number one reason to feel safer. It's being called an asymmetric advantage. But until there's an actual shooting war, no one knows for sure. * They've got better range than planes, literally being able to stay at sea for months. * Since we're talking about the elephant in the room, its believed China's submarines aren't up to snuff with current generation technology, but that could change easily. Solemn Sloth posted:The whole war with China thing is blatant yellow perilism but the idea of not handing control over a strategic asset to a government owned company of a nation who has shown itself happy to throw muscle around by withholding contracted material is the least dumb thing he's ever written It's a no-win situation. You can't join the arms race without the arms. Arms dealing is a government thing, Australia's efforts are small and specific, we have to depend on an arms dealer ie another government. In a shooting war, the arms dealer will definitely have leverage, but there is no instance of an arms dealer who never used that leverage either. Blot tends to oversimplify issues like this for rhetorical wins, but looking at his arguments for more than a second exposes them for the trite nonsense they are.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Oh yay its Mr Boring with your weekly dose of one-eyed idiot ALP flag-waving, well there's more than two choices Mr Boring, and the electorate will avoid your favoured ones enough to keep things interesting. Too bad so sad eh 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Up early and catching up with Laura Tingle on Phil Adams little wireless program. What she's saying about the Budget is a bit worrying. To paraphrase "I can't believe that the Budget as leaked is all there is because it seems like there's very little outside concessions to high income earners, not repairing the political damage of the 2014 budget, and I can't believe that, despite the hapless PM and Treasurer, senior experienced hands in the government aren't making sure the right political things are done." If I read between the tea leaves of such foreboding, certain government people might want this Budget to fail. Either they're doubling down or they're being left high and dry for someone else to swoop in and "fix" things for the election. Doubling down on 2014 sounds like a perfect suicide note for the LNP as it currently exists.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Can't even rely on the Liberal party for cheaper cigs these days. BBJoey posted:extremely lomarf Don't be shy guys, give us the benefit of your superior grasp of geopolitics then. I've got no hope that open even understands what Cartoon wrote, but BBJoey is usually more insightful. BCR posted:Well, because China is only interested in one on one dialogue where it can bully the smaller countries into submission leading to the country's involved (Vietnam, Phillipines, etc) acting collectively with the US to counter that. Australia is defacto US because we sign up to everything they say and have their bases on our soil. It didn't just happen because China is being mean to the locals. All this "oh noes we have to pick sides", the last time I looked, I didn't see India rushing to one side or the other. But then they're a bit more grown-up than us as a nation, even though they're half our age. Painting the US like good international citizens is just hilariously one-eyed. Very lazy of you BCR, you're usually better than this. Negligent posted:The thing is that China sees itself as a great power and after a century of humiliation restoring it's rightful place in the world. Trying to stand up to Chinese assertions in the SCS/the 9 dash line is a balancing act because, domestically, the CCP can't lose face by giving in. So doing freedom of navigation ops may end up being counterproductive because China then escalates by putting in an air defence identification zone. How is it possible that Negligent is showing you geniuses up? Almost like he did history in school or something useless like that, enabling him to have some background on current events.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Well, why don't you tell us why it's a good idea? Thought you'd chicken out, I didn't say anything was a good idea. But: being a yes-man for the US definitely isn't. China will do what it wants to do and other than a lot of macho yelling and screaming nothing will change that. Maybe you feel they don't have a right to flex their muscles but given their treatment from the West and Japan in the last two centuries I'm frankly surprised there aren't more nuclear craters. The degree of side Australia takes with the US will have repercussions. On the plus side, the US is emboldened to talk up poo poo and some of our neighbours might like that. But no one is under the illusion we're anything but US lapdogs. Of course when the US charges in like a bull at a gate and this worries the same neighbours, that yes-man position won't look as good. we may not depend on them economically, but it's the political barriers to further integration into Asia we might rue. And we need China economically more than we need the US. Shouldn't we worry more about China thinks, or don't we need all those export dollars when they flex those muscles? Why didn't we go for the Japanese sub contract for instance, open? We have a finer line to tread than just echoing whatever the imperialist US running dog says. This is diplomacy, I don't expect you to understand it. Re your second hilarious comment. India is a good deal more mature as a diplomatic country than Australia because they took the position of independence from all sides from the start of their nationhood, not because they have a bunch of people, oh and started from a much weaker economic base than we did. Somehow, they owe less even to their former colonial masters than we do, and have not had to suck up to the US either. As an Asian country they get more respect from the region than we do, they are part of international Asian treaties and groups that we are barred from, and generally show us up in diplomatic terms. We should be aspiring to be more like them but we're far too comfortable being a US lapdog, and that's how the region sees us. BBJoey posted:My main objection is to what I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) as a 'US are jerks so China should be allowed to be jerks as well' equivocation. US foreign policy is an utter nightmare and will become worse when Hillary is elected next year, but that doesn't mean every position they take is worthy of scorn by association. The Iranian negotiations, for example, were a huge success, and my (admittedly ill-informed) understanding of the South China Sea tensions is that the US is on the side of reason. There are definitely issues to be argued with tactics employed by the US on this issue but the strategy is fairly sound, I feel. China is reacting to its sense of nationalism after a couple of centuries being everyone's bitch. It's not going to be pretty. I deplore their heavy-handedness, but I'm not so stupid as to think they're going to stop if threatened. All the "naval exercises" are just bluster, but they're alo diplomacy. Unfortunately the US thinks it has a right to tell China what it can and cannot do, and its a fundamentally broken strategy, guaranteed to annoy China and make it even more determined to push smaller countries around to show the US it doesn't have the power it think it does. I think behind the scenes many people on both sides of this issue agree China will generally get what it wants, but it never does well to say so aloud. If China wants the South China Sea, it's going to get it, full stop short of a major war that everyone is trying to avoid. I agree, Hilary is a hawk and could well be tempted to put her foot in it, she has a very close association with the armed forces. But there is no "side of reason", the strategy is about US feelings of international relevance more than anything else. It's been poking and prodding the Japanese to be more self-reliant in its defence, for example and of course the prospect of an arms race is publically deplored (and privately welcomed). I expect a good many decades of yelps and pantomime horror and not a lot of serious action however. My point is that whatever the US position, its Australia's win or loss how we tread that diplomatic line. BCR posted:The US are not saints, in the South China sea dispute they are clear water better international citizens than China in this one theatre. Two of your links clearly indicate India's main concern is its own waters and the other is being a good Asian citizen. Oh, and saving the US time and money tracking subs for them, that'll avoid the US wanting a loving base somewhere nearby to "help" with the China "problem". That's really picking sides, yeah. It's never simply a matter of being a "good citizen" either, there's always self-interest involved.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I can't comment about the likelihood of China getting its way because I don't know much about the current version environment, but I think the current strategy of putting up as much resistance as possible both diplomatically and militarily (in the form of free navigation excercises etc) is the best option available. The main objection I raise is that it's not the US trying to tell China what it can't do; it's regional nations telling China they won't stand for its retaliatory nationalism, with the backing of the US. The US is obviously driven by self-interest in this case but so is literally every nation involved, that's not so much a fault as the reality of geopolitics. The US position goes back quite a few years, conservative hawks have been making anti-China noises since the Wall fell. The domino theory was discredited, they keep thinking up new angles. The South China Sea issue is a gift to them, and feeds into US prejudices. The problem with getting a Hilary might be that they go more unilateral instead of backing the locals. But as far as China is concerned with the present situation, it's as good as being told what they can and can't do. So as a strategy it's not much of a goer because it's talking to the proverbial brick wall. I quite see how threatened that makes China's neighbours feel, I just don't see long-term how it changes anything. It's nice to have the US backing, but push has not come to shove yet. open24hours posted:What does 'diplomatic maturity' mean? Is there a list of countries by diplomatic maturity? Open plays with words in a desperate attempt to look like he knows what he's talking about. You still haven't put up any ideas of your own but I can't expect you to, because you don't have any. At least the others have arguments (hell, even Negligent has a cogent argument), and what do you have?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
BCR posted:It's in the United States, Vietnams, Phillipines, Japanese, Indonesian, etc's self interest that China doesn't claim all the islands and build missile bases Yeah, but it's still going to happen. They simply can't stop them. And long-term Australia has to be careful about which side of the argument it wants to be on. It doesn't matter how we characterize their actions, they're still going to act. Unless you really want an Asian war, cos they really don't give a poo poo what we think. quote:Well long term if you want us to become more integrated in Asia, that would mean supporting in words and deeds our Asian neighbours against China. No, long term, you want to still be talking to China. It might seem prudent in the short to medium term to oppose their interests, but its not the end game. That's the brutal truth. Look, the US has pretty much done a similar thing worldwide in the last century but it doesn't have China's patience or its resolve. They won't stick around, and I'm betting that a few of our neighbours will at some point accommodate the Chinese just to be on the "right" side themselves. Best you can hope for is internal collapse like Russia, but that's Armageddon for everyone too.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
I have no mouth and I must carrrrrrp 
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Redcordial posted:I don't understand why reporters don't just tell him to shut the gently caress up, but then again I do because good luck getting another job am I right. He's giving them a tax cut, of course they're saying nothing.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Alanna McTiernan rather honestly gave the reason for her retirement: unable to influence policy, like an extra in a blockbuster. That's more telling than Bishop's bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
A cynic might say this is the job meant for Dutton so he's wiped out politically. It must be a poisoned chalice by now. Pretty soon ScoMo will be pretending he never had the portfolio.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Lenore Taylor bemoans the use of "class war" (of course she would, she got a tax cut) and gets served in the comments:Catherine Schrodinger posted:If we can't call it a class war, then what do we call this concerted attack by the Coalition on the lower classes? If Mr Turnbull is so appalled by the "us vs them" rhetoric, then why does his party divide us into "lifters and leaners"?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
If I was Pyne's campaign manager, I wouldn't be reminding the electorate who they don't want to vote for so soon... edit: so would it be technically be an electoral crime to deface said posters before the writs? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Cmon Malcolm, surely you can't gently caress up calling an election as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Hahaha small business owner in Eden-Monaro has never seen the Lib Member Hendy. Mike Kelly should take it back. This could break the bellwether streak! Also some dumb hack on abc24 talking utter tripe about people expecting more from their MP's but MP's are hanging around less. Gosh what an insight.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
WE WILL WE WILL DAM YOU (in association with the Libs) Election Meow! 
ewe2 fucked around with this message at 06:21 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Death of the actor
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
You Am I posted:Kinda disappointed when I scanned the news website and found nothing about a dead actor I just love that they spent all day at this thing and they still managed to gently caress up during Turnbull's speech.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Wonk The Vote 1
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
ABC news article headline: Springborg says he has set up Nicholls for LNP election success You don't even need to read the article 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:They're called the loving Coalition, for gently caress's sake. THEY'RE ALWAYS FORMING GOVERNMENT WITH TWO PARTIES. It's ok, Shorten just hosed up by publicly ruling out an ALP-Greens minority government, that won't bite him in the rear end if he wins at all. Unfortunately the electorate mostly takes these claims as gospel given they don't even SEE the Coalition means two parties. If they did, people would have realized the Nats were utter crap decades ago. Anidav posted:Also lol Is there an alternative bellwether seat, this one's broken.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Malformed Turdball finds his wife's purse open. The TL;DR of this is that there's nothing particularly shonky about being a director of a fly-by-night mining venture keeping its assets in the Virgin Islands to The interesting thing is what Turnbull did after he quit: his firm raises a bunch of shares for that self-same company. It's just a wee step away from conflict of interest/insider trading but also perfectly legal and would have been a very nice bonus going-away present for ceasing his directorship. I assume Wran got a nice backhander out of that too. Turnbull did a few barely-legal manoeuvres like this, the logging firm in the Solomon Islands story predates this caper. He got to play consultant to the Solomon Islands government and make a few bucks. Here's a read.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 05:01
|
|
Wran
|
PaletteSwappedNinja posted:Okay but what if you're Chris Uhlmann? What does it mean then? "Please give me a job if you win the election, I can't stand these ABC watermelons"
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Anidav posted:It is such an obvious PR campaign. Discredit them instantly and paint them as Labor voters or something. Clearly they want to Stop The Duncans. Let's hope they keep coming.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
As much as I enjoy the idiocy of the Hun's Stop The Duncans campaign (immigration control for the poor), I must remember they're running interference for the government who doesn't want to be asked any difficult questions over the election they wanted to have. The Kouk details the problem: quote:Abbott claim No 1
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Man, Pyne's seat must really be in trouble I think they're hoping we'll have forgotten by week 8, but since I don't watch commercial TV I've no idea how deeply the messaging is penetrating, give it another couple of weeks.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:Why do I always feel sus when I get something about voting, which has clearly been posted by a party? Yeah don't touch it, its a scam that they refuse to fix. The AEC wants this issue settled but the Libs refused to back an ALP bill in 2010 and they can still pull this poo poo. edit: alternatively draw big CNBs on it with the legend "put this in your loving database, scum" and post it.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Katherine Murphys liveblog wrapping up with an interesting point:quote:Not one question on asylum seekers. In western Sydney. And the room votes: quote:A clear win for Shorten. Of the 100, 42 are more likely to vote for Bill Shorten, 29 for Malcolm Turnbull, 29 still undecided.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
From Elder's recent blog:quote:This is why "campaign trail journalism" is so lame and such bullshit:
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
This is the guy who represents conservative "balance" on ABC Radio National. This is the most bizarre thing I've read by a Liberal commentator who isn't a shill like Bolt, Devine, or Albrechtsen. So I'm going to rant about it.quote:Malcolm Turnbull will lose if he doesn't win back the Liberal base
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Switzer is an IPA Libertarian, so of course the ABC uses him for balance. Well that figures, he wants his policy executed by the Right Salesman without any idea of how politics works. Why don't they just do what he tells them? Because people hate your ideas Tom, and noone can sell them. Birdstrike posted:And to think that guy is head and shoulders above every other conservative commentator I've read. He's completely naive. Anidav knows more about how politics works than he does.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
That's a hell of a rosy poll in Qld. I'd need to know a bit more about it and have some other supporting polls before I spouted off about Qld intentions. As a rule I trust Galaxy a lot less than the other polls anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Try as they might, I don't think Crikey can influence the vote.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Oh great, then it will be Scott Morrison's Reign of Terror.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Morrison hasn't exactly performed well when he has at to talk about what he is doing at all, his prime ministership would likely be even more comically inept than Abbotts. Sure, but they'll have to try him at some point. The base don't trust him, so he might be brief, but nasty. The alternatives are loving dire though. It's the same for both parties, though. Albo and Bowen? Nope. Speaking of brief and nasty, it appears that the Liberal party are indeed hanging Sophie Mirabella out to dry, refusing to spend any money on her campaign at all. She's done.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
A stupid greedy politician, well I never.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 10:21
|
|