US Marines to be Stationed in Australia

[christo-f]

I don't even know where to go with that.

 

The US isn't pushing for an alliance with CHina, they are directly competing with them. IF you meant Australia instead of China, that would be a bit hard to do given that we have a defence treaty with the US and we have been in to every conflict with them in the PAcific and the Mid East since WWII. We have a US base on Australian soil and permanent basing of at least 200 US soldiers already.

 

Of course they've been vague, it's diplomacy. You never want to commit concretely to anything as that takes away any room to move in the future, why would you do that?

 

China said much more than that, they were rather prolific on the matter especially in state owned newspaper opeds.

 

 

It's not an oil grab? What is it then, claiming territory just for the sake of it? So what do you make of all the exploratory drilling and the moving of a platform in to the area by the Chinese, coincidence?

 

 

As for net getting my point, I really don't know how I could simplify it any more, I'm sorry.

[bourgeoisie]

no need for apologies! you lost me with the breakdancing thing... the other info and the maps are really interesting, not trying to argue :]

 

may I ask, are you Australian?

 

Just to clarify, I understand diplomacy. Its late and I cant be arsed going into detail but it seems we agree on most things anyway.

What I mean by vague is there’s general ‘vagueness’ then there’s the current fuckery of the Gillard govt. Not saying the opposition is any better but the foreign affairs department is a joke. I want to hear something other and more solid from my PM re: marines in NT. All I can hear is the sound of her lips on Obamas ass. Which is stinky. We need to solidify with China. Srsly fuck the US.

And that’s how I feel about this particular subject right now.

[christo-f]

Yes, I'm Australian.

 

I cannot stand Australian politics, other than the foreign policy, defence or security realm. I'm watching Albanese on Lateline right now. Seriously, I'm not a violent guy but the way our politicians dribble utter shit turns me in to Charles fucking Manson.

 

As for the shared facilities agreement with the US, I don't have an opinion. I'm only fleshing out the strategic thinking behind the idea. You may be interested in the latest Quarterly essay by Hugh White that discusses the changing balance in the Pacific and Australia's place in it.

[abcs]

Too bad the chinese have to suck so bad.

Their actions, and history in regard to

the environment, human rights, population,

copyright violation. They are the ugliest asians

May as well try to contribute something more on topic.

Chinese have plenty of incentive to secure a cheaper source

of energy. Haven't they been jamming into cities over

there. Middle class expansion, building, economy still firing.

Naturally they are about keeping that up. I hate thinking too

much about the rest of the world. I like peace of mind. Not

worrying too much about being forced to defend my Mitten

or else. Being invaded occupied, enslaved, killed.

In the last 2000 years its been countless wars.

There are certainly other places that seem more volatile.

But if Chinas nuts drop thats a real problem.

And thats all i got. I could keep going but all it would be

is unsupported assumptions, conjecture and opinions.

[abcs]

aaahhaha my attempt to hop on topic completely missed the topic.

[Karl Stefanovic]

When will Australia realise that it is a part of Asia and not America.

 

Pretty sure Box Hill is an asian country.

[Soup]

Haha thanks for the response christo-f. You're like the Plato of foreign policy. I think he waxed poetically about bboy metaphors too.

 

But here's the deal, the US either plans on using those 2000 marines or plans on them doing absolutely nothing, either plan we can't really afford right now. Cant we just send a bunch of Darwinians some outfits... er "uniforms" and have them dress up when China peeks in?

 

And I know you know all the corporate espionage/complete and utter lack of copyright laws and theft at every level that's costing american companies upwards of a trillion dollars in lost revenue. We can put a number on that. It's not an exact figure, but a one and some zeros is a good start. I'd imagine China calling dibs on the trade route through the south china sea has some companies pissed off at what china's government is costing them. If so, why not do the same, pull out the abacuses, and throw out a number... just to help America prioritize what part of china we hate the most.

 

And i mean pushback from chinese companies against the chinese government taxing and tariffing their own merchants at every corner. The chinese government is claiming that their red branded state capitalism prevented the "failed capitalist markets" from hurting their economy. I'm wondering how China's tax base feels about that and if they're crying for less government intervention.

[christo-f]

Quick answer as I'm fried;

 

The Chinese govt hates implementing taxes and allows the MASSIVE tax avoidance that occurs all throughout the economy. Beijing knows very well that increases in taxes will result in increased demands of the govt. and/or increased say in policy making.

[vanfullofretards]

Lets say a friend approaches you and asks if you would borrow them say, $5,000 to go to school, and they'll eventually pay you back after he gets a good job and has decent income.

Are you going to beat the shit out of him because he didn't pay up early?

Or are you going to support him and do everything you can to make sure you get a return on your investment?

It's in the best interests of both countries to prosper economically.

So enough with this war fervor. If America goes down, so does China.

[Soup]

Quick answer as I'm fried;

 

The Chinese govt hates implementing taxes and allows the MASSIVE tax avoidance that occurs all throughout the economy. Beijing knows very well that increases in taxes will result in increased demands of the govt. and/or increased say in policy making.

 

Really? I can't find any numbers, but if that's the case Im curious how big the chinese government really is (% of Chinese GDP). I just read the other day that a product made in china costs americans way less than the chinese pay for the same thing. They say it's because the corrupt government officials charge freight trucks hundreds of dollars just to use one road, tariff local businesses, nickel and dime businesses at every corner. If corruption is as wide-spreading as it seems in china, yet the official stance in chinese government is "we're too lazy to tax" well.... how's that work?

 

I remember Milton Friedman claiming Hong Kong in the 80's was the greatest example of free market capitalism anywhere... is that really true today? I'm under the impression tax and regulations are far more stringent over there than here.

[christo-f]

Whilst on the idea of economic conflict, I agree. On the idea of the balance of forces and long-term rivalry (which I'm not sure that you are actually referring to) there has to be planning now. History shows that great shifts in power are prone to armed conflict. Best have each player shape each others' actions on the chess board now hoping to create a balance that both will accept rather than have them work it out on the battle field.

[Soup]

Germany's an obvious example of that but they were leading the innovation in cars, planes, trains, tanks, rockets, bombs, space ships.... beer.... fucking everything. What's china leading in? Knocking off soviet knockoffs of american shit? I just think that american companies who outsource to china would be far more effective at forcing change in china than the pentagon. If apple said "cut that shit out or we're going to india." China would change their ways.

 

Oh and to answer my "what % of the GDP is china's government" I found the answer of 2.5%. How is that possible if everything is state owned?! Gotta do more to find out but damn that's tiny.

[theprotester]

Aren't they still leading the way in owning $900B odd dollars of US debt?

[Soup]

China's not that big of a player as everyone thinks.

 

 

Also keep in mind that one of the safest, most boring investments any country can buy are US treasury bonds. The world economy runs on US public debt.

[theprotester]

This seems more up to date;

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/15/us-debt-how-big-who-owns

 

Again though, a spiral of data posted on the internet. I don't anything as gospel.

[christo-f]

That debt cannot really be used as a weapon as doing so fucks China as much as it does the US (at this point in time).

 

Not as easy on the example of Apple moving to India. Many brands do not mind that their stuff has been ripped off over the years. the vast majority couldn't afford it anyway so it didn't cut in to much of their sales. What it did was get their brand out there and create awareness and loyalty. As the middle class grows you see more and more pressure put on the govt to increase IPR enforcement. The losses that these companies make are not worth the MASSIVE cost and disruption that moving their manufacturing/assembly operations would create. Second, China would then block access to the Chinese market (even with the knock off issue factored in there is massive profits to be made..., or missed in China). Thirdly, India's transport infrastructure is woeful and doesn't really lend itself yet to large scale manufacturing as China does. Fourth, corruption in India is just as bad as China......, etc. etc.

 

Another angle you have to consider is that companies like Apple, coke, Microsoft, Walmart, etc. work for profit, not national interest. It's not very often that they will coordinate with the USG and almost impossible that they will take a loss because a politician says it would help out with their foreign policy agenda.

 

 

Basically what I'm trying to lay out here is the massive complexity of these issues and that there are mountains of considerations that have to be addressed when dealing with tier one geopol issues like this. Nothing is simple, linear or straight forward

[bourgeoisie]

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.

 

China for sure.

 

I mean really.... or there's this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYeDRKB1RXw&feature=share

 

#OccupyWallMart

 

No. Thanks.

[christo-f]

You think that doesn't happen in China? Have you actually spent any time there or are you making assumptions based on what you think it is like?

 

I've seen middle age women fight over discounted pork on an average week day in a missle class supermarket more times than I can remember. Every time I catch the train on a Beijing subway it's a battle. Try going to an an average market in China and see what the reality is.

 

This is a DAILY occurrence in China. The only reason why this made the news is that it was caught on camera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNpoXYFs57k - watch this one, I mean really fucking watch it.

 

This is a daily occurrence in China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-2swB7VaU

 

This is a daily occurrence in China:

 

 

I'm not trying to say that China is any worse than the US or better in any way, all countries have their problems including my own (insert how Australians have treated the indigens over the decades). But to see you base your opinions on a bit of silliness in a shop in the US says very loudly to me that you have no understanding of China as a country and a culture.

 

Not trying to be rude to you but the observation has to be made.

[theprotester]

Another angle you have to consider is that companies like Apple, coke, Microsoft, Walmart, etc. work for profit, not national interest. It's not very often that they will coordinate with the USG and almost impossible that they will take a loss because a politician says it would help out with their foreign policy agenda.

 

On from there, they are GLOBAL companies.

[Soup]

That debt cannot really be used as a weapon as doing so fucks China as much as it does the US (at this point in time).

 

Not as easy on the example of Apple moving to India. Many brands do not mind that their stuff has been ripped off over the years. the vast majority couldn't afford it anyway so it didn't cut in to much of their sales. What it did was get their brand out there and create awareness and loyalty. As the middle class grows you see more and more pressure put on the govt to increase IPR enforcement. The losses that these companies make are not worth the MASSIVE cost and disruption that moving their manufacturing/assembly operations would create. Second, China would then block access to the Chinese market (even with the knock off issue factored in there is massive profits to be made..., or missed in China). Thirdly, India's transport infrastructure is woeful and doesn't really lend itself yet to large scale manufacturing as China does. Fourth, corruption in India is just as bad as China......, etc. etc.

 

Another angle you have to consider is that companies like Apple, coke, Microsoft, Walmart, etc. work for profit, not national interest. It's not very often that they will coordinate with the USG and almost impossible that they will take a loss because a politician says it would help out with their foreign policy agenda.

 

 

Basically what I'm trying to lay out here is the massive complexity of these issues and that there are mountains of considerations that have to be addressed when dealing with tier one geopol issues like this. Nothing is simple, linear or straight forward

 

I can't really argue with that but if you have this huge increase of middle class chinese that demand IPR enforcement, obviously the standard of living is increasing in China too. Are they demanding labor and fair trade laws too? How long will it be until chinese consumers demand representation in the government and start affecting foreign policy?

 

And Protestor, do the math duder. The difference between the graphs we posted is 0.5%, which is just the difference between 2010 and 2011. That Black Friday vid is too funny.

[theprotester]

I didn't do math, I just said mine was more current.

[Soup]

Cool. I just didn't like the graph in that one link because it left out the overwhelming amount of public debt owned domestically. THeres more public debt tied up in social security than owned by china.

[theprotester]

Correct. I thought we were talking about China and foreign debt, crossfire seems to be about as on topic as Ch.0.

 

Anyway, no one in Australia really gives a fuck about this. Maybe they'll learn something from our SAS? As for it being a 'sweet deployment' as I heard on the radio - they obviously haven't been to NT before. I guess no enemy conflict is a big bonus, though.

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3674908.html

[christo-f]

Everyone seems to be focused on the marine deployment and that's really one of the smaller elements to this. The naval aspect along with air capabilities are the real strategic shift here. Subs, carriers, aegis, refuelers, ISTAR and other strategic capabilities are much more important than a few thousand marines.

[Soup]

Correct. I thought we were talking about China and foreign debt, crossfire seems to be about as on topic as Ch.0.

 

Why the fuck are Christo-F, FiveFingerMiiscount, and KMART the only australians I can talk to on 12oz? With everyone else it's like I'm speaking a foreign language. I guess you have to have visited America to understand the Barack's Speech.

 

You: Aren't they still leading the way in owning $900B odd dollars of US debt?

Me: China's not that big of a player in US debt as everyone thinks. Graph.jpg

You: This seems more up to date; Graph.jpg

Me: And Protestor, do the math duder. The difference between the graphs we posted is 0.5%, which is just the difference between 2010 and 2011.

You: I didn't do math, I just said mine was more current.

Me: Cool. I just didn't like the graph in that one link because it left out the overwhelming amount of public debt owned domestically. THeres more public debt tied up in social security than owned by china.

You: Correct. I thought we were talking about China and foreign debt, crossfire seems to be about as on topic as Ch.0.

Now ME: It's like you're backing and filling for no fucking reason. You originally thought china's ownership of US debt was leading the way. I tried to show you it's less than 10% of total US public debt. I'm just trying to give you a sense of proportion because $1,300B doesn't mean much without understanding context. 10% of public debt's only going to do so much for shaping foreign policy. Now you're being a fucking noodle.

 

I've been on topic this whole time. Australians....

[theprotester]

You're an angry little bugger aren't you?

 

You just like arguing.

[bourgeoisie]

You think that doesn't happen in China? Have you actually spent any time there or are you making assumptions based on what you think it is like?

 

I've seen middle age women fight over discounted pork on an average week day in a missle class supermarket more times than I can remember. Every time I catch the train on a Beijing subway it's a battle. Try going to an an average market in China and see what the reality is.

 

This is a DAILY occurrence in China. The only reason why this made the news is that it was caught on camera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNpoXYFs57k - watch this one, I mean really fucking watch it.

 

This is a daily occurrence in China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-2swB7VaU

 

This is a daily occurrence in China:

 

 

I'm not trying to say that China is any worse than the US or better in any way, all countries have their problems including my own (insert how Australians have treated the indigens over the decades). But to see you base your opinions on a bit of silliness in a shop in the US says very loudly to me that you have no understanding of China as a country and a culture.

 

Not trying to be rude to you but the observation has to be made.

 

All good. I'm very familiar with China and it's culture. This is a serious issue that I care about, my flippant responses are prob just a lame attempt to keep it light. Keep the interesting conversation coming. I really don't feel the need to justify it but:

I have first hand experience.

Also, parents lived in Shanghai for years. Still have and do alot of business over there.

 

And to answer the question again, giving another example. If I could chose who I'd prefer to have more power over this region I still say China.

I can think of many reasons why... This time, let's say I'm picking communism over Christian extremism.

 

Why are you so invested in the discussion?

[theprotester]

The OP asked how Australians feel about it.

[christo-f]

I'm interested in strategic issues and geopolitics.

 

I also lived in China, speak the lingo and have emotional ties to the country.

 

What I find interesting is that the majority of Chinese that I've come across, whilst still very nationalistic would much prefer to live in the US.

 

 

I also spend a lot of time in the US and I rarely experience any religious extremism.

[Soup]

You're an angry little bugger aren't you?

 

You just like arguing.

 

That must be an Australian thing: When someone corrects you, it must mean they want to fight. Oh well, feel free to continue being angry and arguing about how I'm angry like to argue. Maybe pepper in some derailing posts about how I make derailing posts. And do it without a shred of irony—That part's my favorite.

 

Everyone seems to be focused on the marine deployment and that's really one of the smaller elements to this. The naval aspect along with air capabilities are the real strategic shift here. Subs, carriers, aegis, refuelers, ISTAR and other strategic capabilities are much more important than a few thousand marines.

 

Well here's why I think that is, and what I think this is about:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=142582332

 

and

 

 

-Asia has all of a sudden become a major economic player on par with Europe.

-Europe's having some serious economic woes and will be digging itself out of a hole for an indefinite period of time

-America needs to diversify its portfolio, or at least make Europe a smaller percentage of it by investing more elsewhere. Asia looks good but China's a huge piece of the pie.

-If America plans on investing more into Asia it needs China to simmer the fuck down, slow its GDP, and chill on the arms race.

 

So it's not really a big deal how many carriers we send over there, because like you said, it's all just a show so china and america can meet each other's terms before we go in. Also India and Indonesia have told US that they fear becoming collateral damage if America and China go to war. That would explain only 2000 troops.