Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

So Rudd said "Use force against China if needed"

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Takamii, Dec 6, 2010.

  1. make your own decisions


    with all that is being tossed around

    The only thing I do not like is political aides and people of note from other countries ( ie Canada and USA ) saying publicly that an Australian Citizen should be assassinated and our "leaders" stay quiet on that

  2. I think the wikileaks man is in more poo than the chistians in the sewer.

    I will make a bold but cynical prediction. He will continue to say defiant things, but one of these days he will show up with a gunshot wound to the head, that could not have possibly been self inflicted, but before the coroner has even seen the body, the Australian government will have a press release out about how sad it is that he committed suicide, but that he was playing a foolish game, and seeing as he was a sex offender anyway, we should all not be too concerned.

    That's a good Kennedy speech. I love the images chosen to background it. Kennedy gave a very famous speech at his inauguration, the one about 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, what you can do for your country." Two points of interest (1) Not sure whether he knew it or not, but that speech was taken more or less word for word from an english translation of one given in the ancient world. I forget who gave it and where, but it was in the text books and exercises of all students of rhetoric. (2) Three days before, Dwight Eisenhower, the outgoing president, made one of the most remarkable and prophetic speeches ever given. It had a lot in common with that speech on the video, by Kennedy. The transcript can be found here.


    He warns explicitly of the danger of the military industrial complex taking over and subverting the government, the press and the people.

    Those with an interest in the cia and what it is, what it does, some of its history, and how it operates, may find this an interesting read. Note: It is a book, not an article. It will keep you going for a while, but it is an eye opener.

  3. It's not like we should be surprised by now when Australia elects to stay silent about its citicens being ****ed over, hrm?
  4. Well, we've had 110 years to get used to it. When did the government of this proud nation ever do anything but bend over for the great power in the world?

    Go find a copy of Breaker Morant on dvd. The world hasn't changed much.
  5. 2:16 am monday.
    and he's still going, probably still hitting the sauce too, legend (y)
  6. Hmm i own the breaker morant dvd :p.
    Quite right too!
    Shame they again denied a clearing of his name... when... in the last month i think?

    5:20am and im still going too :p. Heading for bed now though...
  7. It's interesting that no entity is focusing on the crimes contained in the leaks.
  8. What's Breaker Morant got to do wit h it??? He was a British Citizen in the British Army, who actually did what they accused him of...

    The wikileaks bloke is another matter I'm not sure he's safe anywhere, but with Australia firmly pining it's colours the the US they've no other option but to back the "Great Satan"...
  9. Rudd actually warned Hillary Clinton to be prepared to use force against China ''if everything goes wrong''. In other words appeasement doesn't work. Deal with China fairly and genuinely but don't turn your back. And don't give in to threats.

    My impression is that he is merely repeating the old Teddy Roosevelt maxim - "speak softly but carry a big stick"
  10. I'm not surprised by this. Its pretty obvious that if China decided to go off and do its own thing, it *could* be quite dangerous for... pretty much everyone. And he did say if China doesn't integrate into the international community.

    He's overdue to learn that just because you can release stuff, doesn't mean you should, For example, there was that stuff about various informants and whathaveyou; even if the names are blanked out, its not that hard to recognise someone you know based on what they know and a bit of a description.

    With these cables, they are already destabilising international relations, and have a high potential for unpleasant results. But it will take time before we know whether the it works out negative or positive in the longer term, 'cause it might go either way.
  11. Considering China aren't exactly 'friendly', nor are its leaders idiots, i think this particular quote is one of the 'we already knew that' leaks. Cautiously friendly without putting the weapons away is about right.

    Only interesting because it's one of the few to mention us, really.
  12. Actually, I think Rudd was getting very close to saying that China's leaders are in fact idiots. Or at least dangerously paranoid.

    Things that do probably need to be said, and said in private. This is a good example of why you might want to prevent release of some information. It's guaranteed to inflame even more paranoia in the regime.

    For that reason, I'm undecided. In an ideal world all government activity would be open, but you can always make cases for exceptions like these. I think the only decent compromise is that even sensitive information must eventually be released after the critical time period. Retrospective transparency is better than none at all.

    Up until now that seems to have been what Wikileaks was doing.

    As for the charges against Assange, well if you were a government and you wanted to send a message to the world that you will 'get' anyone that challenges you - this is the way you would do it, isn't it?
    Maybe the allegations are real, but if it IS a fit-up it would look exactly like this. As blatant as possible.
  13. Which is, in my opinion, a lot more worrying than if it were done covertly. Cover ups and covert smears are bad, but are, at least, a sign that the authorities involved care that their actions would look bad.

    When it's this obvious, it's clear that those involved no longer give a stuff about public opinion.

    And, ultimately, it appears that Assange is a marked man, not because he's particularly dangerous but because he's politically embarrassing. Not that it's anything new, but again, it's worryingly blatant.
  14. Im not sure I buy this line of reasoning though. International relations are being damaged because of what individual administrations are doing. You can bet all these countries were trying to find this info anyways through espionage, so I dont think this whistleblower is at fault.
  15. I find it so hypocritical.
    U.S. foreign policy in itself is criminal. It has been since the end of WWII.

    Lets see.. who were the first to use terrorist tactics in the modern world..AD.
    Boston tea party ring any bells ???
    Who were the first to lock people up in concentration camps ???
    The British. For the Americans. And it was the Palestinians.

    Who releases publicly any crap they can on any government or religious group that does not meet or conform to their standards.
    The Good old U S of A....ssholes.

    I do not condone at all what the eastern world is doing. But I can see their point. America does not even get that much oil form the middle east. It's main source is Venezuela and they probably get it cheap because they owe the U.S. so much money.
    For mine China could take on the whole world and win. Their just too big. They are very well armed. And they have no problem dying in the tens of millions for their country.
    I would hate to be a lobster or tuna fisherman right now. China is not going to buy our shit because of this. They do not take to being insulted very well. It's all about face for them.
    And really. Where did wikapeadia get their information ??? Disgruntled intelligence staff. Or the Chinese hacker har har. Or people who know the truth and know it's wrong. Te American economy is on thin ice. very thin ice. And if it trips it will pull us all down with it.
    China wont have to go to war. It will just have to pull in it's debts, and close its assets and America will fold at the knees. taking us with it.
  16. Here's an interesting article giving insight into the thinking guiding Chinese foreign relations, and why Assange has shown Rudd not only to be a goose, but a dangerously deluded one, by The Age's china correspondent John Garnaut: Rudd meets a brutal reality.

    As for Assange and wikileaks, what he's doing maybe personally foolhardy, but I don't think you can argue against it being a good thing. (I realise that what I'm about to say tends to gloss over the harsh reality of global Realpolitik, but...) at the end of the day it comes down to a choice between an esoteric concentration of power (oligarchy) or an open, transparent dispersal of power (democracy). Any postponement to the release of government information (however pragmatic) militates against democratic prerogatives.

    Governments who engage in espionage may have a genuine interest in protecting the identity of their operatives and informants, but the ones most at risk are never blind to their situation. The US's claim that Assange has "blood on his hands" is hyperbolic and hypocritical. But, who knows, one or two of their people may have gone missing because of it. If so, I doubt we should morn their loss.

    On a related note, anyone catch the John Lennon doco on SBS late last night? Interesting bunch of interviewees!
  17. I'm sure the Chinese are terrified!!! :LOL: