christo-f

hah, yeah, fucking Obama Marx, forcing socialism on those poor Asians, going to ruin their economy and turn them in to Russians....

That's an impossible task, you can't break down possible contingencies in to real dollar amounts. You can't game out what every ASEAN country will do, what an arms race in North East Asia might do, what the loss of US arms sales to Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand, etc. would do to the US economy should these countries move over to the Chinese sphere given American isolationism or even a refusal to protect their ability to make any decision. I'm not saying that this will all definitely happen but your asking that these things be gamed out in order for you to make a clear cost an benefit analysis on whether a shared facilities agreement is worth the dollar cost. As for whether it will make any difference to the regional balance you may not be seeing it in the full context. It's not just 2500 marines, it's actually more so a shared facilities agreement for troops, aircraft and naval vessels. So it's more so the submarines, aircraft carriers, air refueling capabilities, surveillance aircraft, etc. that are the main parts of the deal that create the shaping effect. And that agreement hasn't been made in a vacuum either. The US has been holding exercises and port visits with Vietnam, for example. Hilary is about to go to Myanmar to continue the push of political reform, has been in Philippines giving diplomatic support to Manila, the TPP program is being pushed in the Pacific, the US is sponsoring the Lower Mekong Initiative, etc. etc. Just a note to add, it's not all bombs and threats either. The US regularly sends medical support vessels to places like Vietnam, Philippines, etc. for port calls where they open up shop as a free medical practice. The lower Mekong Initiative is about expanding environmental programs, education support, infrastructure development, etc. Personally I don't have an opinion on the agreement, I'm only looking at the reasoning and strategy being employed.

I'm going to be a wanker and point out that you've done a Japanese design on a Chinese language news paper. Big fan of the gold and purple piece.

putting my cans away and taking up fucking horse riding..., or something....

yummy left-overs.

Tell you what, you go live in China for 6 months and the US for 6 months and tell us all which country you would prefer to be the dominant power in the region.

^^^Hahaha! Why are you against this Fist666? Yes it's about China, no it's not about a base to launch war from. Since 2009 China has become much more aggressive as the nation's economy expands and energy demands rise in order to keep the economy growing. China imports massive amounts of energy with most of it coming from the Middle East. Grab out a map and you'll see that from the Persian Gul it has to go South of India though the Indian Ocean crossing between Indonesia and Malaysia in the Malacca Strait, then up through the South China Sea past Vietnam and Philippines. That is a long way for ships to travel and the maritime Choke point of the Malacca Straits is a major vulnerability where 3 frigates could sit blocking Chinese energy imports (simplistic explanation but you get the drift). That then means that China's economy is very vulnerable to outside factors and no nation could ever accept that (Japan pre-WWII is the case study for this situation). Now, you look at ROK, Taiwan and Japan and you'd suggest that they are in the same predicament. However it is China's economy that is growing at around 9% currently and that have a massive population that if the economy supports will be the largest market and financial power in the world (which of course then translates in to military power). That is a threat to the current world order, an order that the US dominates. That is threatening to the US and as history shows major shifts in power like this more often than not conflict is the outcome (Germany WW1 is the classic case study here). Another reason why Japan, ROK, etc., haven't had the same fears as China of their sea lanes being cut is that they are US client states as a result of the Cold War. They were either given direct market access to the US allowing their economies to grow massively (Japan) or they were protected against hostile neighbours by the US military (ROK, Taiwan) both in return for surrendering their foreign policy to the US. The US has mostly supported a climate of economic activity in the world and that requires open sea lanes. The US is the only country in history that has largely had control of the world's oceans. As said before, given that China stands the possibility of challenging US dominance of the world with its massive potential Beijing cannot rely on US benevolence as Japan, etc. have been able to. China has been acting in ways that indicates it is choosing to challenge US control of at least the Western Pacific, the South China Seas and possibly even the Indian Ocean. This has been by increasing capabilities through the floating of its first air craft carrier a few months back (will take decades, training vessels, etc.), creating anti-ship ballistic missiles, rapid growth of its submarine fleet, converting naval vessels in to Fisheries and Oceanic Administration vessels and having them patrol disputed waters aggressively. China has also indicated through intent by aggressively pushing sovereignty claims in the South China Sea and also the East China Sea (where significant resources are also thought to be) and attempting to exclude any foreign activity within its Exclusive Economic Zones. Outside of the region China has been involved in the building of sea ports in Gwadar, Pakistan, Chittagong, Bangladesh, Kyaukpyu, Myanmar and Sri Lanka (the port name escapes me right now). This has been named 'the string of pearls' strategy meant to contain India, which may or may not be the case. Either way the capability is being built and that is what states have to plan for (intentions may be benign today but they may change tomorrow, so base plans on capacity and worst case scenario and anything better than that outcome will be a bonus). So as the US lowers its commitment on the Mid East increasing bandwidth in manpower, kit, economy and attention Washington is able to redeploy the military and adjust its posture to reflect future challenges. That's what the shared facilities agreement with Australia is about, a change in posture. Now this does not mean that the US is maneuvering for war, if war does come it is way off yet. The US would still mop the floor with China if there was an air-sea battle between the two forces (as well as nuclear warfare). This plan is about shaping Chinese policy making and behaviour. The US has to first signal its commitment to China that it intends on remaining in the region and promoting its values of freedom of transit (code for not allowing China to claim sovereignty of the South China Sea). Secondly the US needs to show the other regional nations that they can have confidence that the US will remain active in the region supporting their interests regarding issues of sovereignty, freedom of transit, political and economic alternatives. etc. The idea is that if China believes that the US will work to contain Chinese expansionist behaviour and other regional players will side with the US further constraining Chinese opportunities to act unilaterally in the region that Beijing will have to create more accommodating policies and work within the current US dominated system. Readjusting the force structure to communicate a commitment to the current status can be argued to be a way to reduce the chance of conflict by outmaneuvering the opponent rather than waiting until only offense is available to support the national interest. Polls in Australia seem to indicate that the majority support this policy.

Cant be easy finding a worthwhile word that hasn't already been taken these days though. Glad I got in early.

yellow lemons

Who won?

Dang, really hard to choose between Vims, Pulz, Mek, Umire. Reckon I'll have to go with Vims on this.

This should be bumped to the next page.

Liking that OCD kit.

Nope, they care about the votes of the people who care about paint on rusty old tanks. If you are not from the electorate and/or cannot (make them believe that you can) influence the thoughts of those in the electorate there is little chance of affecting policy.

What they do in Canberra for legals is have them in places that are not directly visible from people's residences and business fronts. That way if the surrounding area gets smashed the consequences aren't as severe. I'm skeptical to think that legals do anything to stop illegal writing, as much as I enjoy using them myself.

Yeah, we can be our own enemy like that sometimes. Do writers preserve the legal spots by containing our desire to write on everyfuckingthing that will hold paint and ink or is doing that in contradiction to what graffiti even is? ...., tree falls in the forest, meaning of life, do I screw my best mate's mum, etc. etc......

Why are they shutting it down? Prob back in this thread somewhere, I guess...

Jesus, that Umire A is fucking smoking, would love to see it on it's own without the backgound as I think the letter stands on its own.

word.

Yep, what's the format and deadline?

Yeah, I'm up for a battle, why not? Will have to give me a little more time than usual, like ten days as work is busy. Also down for a little variation, such as black and white, limited colours or something. You up?

That's sensational.

Invite only won't offer you any protection against surveillance, sorry to say.

And after all my bitching about biros I couldn't find my fine liner anyway. Going to go sit in a corner for a while.... a pen simp by jiangtaixi, on Flickr a pen aa by jiangtaixi, on Flickr a pen splat by jiangtaixi, on Flickr