America Bombs Venezuela

Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Australia's number one focus militarily is the threat from China. I think the only thing that been holding China back historically is the British Sovereignty issue and the the fact that Great Britain has (had) a 'special relationship' with the USA, who also have military interests in Australia.

With the current global situation, that is becoming less and less of a deterrent for China, and given what the USA have just done in Venezuela it isn't much of a long shot to consider China might see it as 'fair game'. Honestly, global stability is a fucking tinderbox right now.
Click to expand...
Plus didn’t the Australian PM bad
Mouth Trump? Have at it Xi.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
If we were talking of joining up with alliances versus Europe in terms of economics, military or security then it just seems very sensible to join the US. They are the most powerful military in the world and they'll always be one of the largest economies.

I mean rightly or wrongly if you consider what the US has done yesterday they have secured an endless oil supply. Where is Europe? It's totally reliant on foreign imports which can end in a heartbeat. Europe was almost destroyed economically by the loss of Russian gas. The only saving grace is Norway who like everybody else just sells to the highest bidder.

Europe will soon be destroyed by China economically. It has already happened in the UK beyond services. Our car industry is already flailing whilst Chinese state backed loss making manufacturers are freely walking in to wipe out the competition and replace home companies.

This would never be allowed to happen in the US.
Click to expand...
What are you blathering on about? We have been in an alliance with the USA militarily since the 2nd world war, and it is the USA that is now fracturing that alliance.

Threatening to invade a NATO country because it will look good on a map is hardly a recipe for closer collaboration, far from it, and that single threat on it's own has changed the way not only Europe, but the world, views it's association with the USA. It's time to distance ourselves from an unreliable partner, and Europe has the means and the motivation to achieve it.

I'll remind you that the USA has never won a war on it's own, in spite of it's perceived military magnificance, and industry has been flooding out of the USA to China and other countries for years. Don't say it wouldn't be allowed to happen, because it has.

My simple remark about not wanting to be a part of the USA is based on me looking at that country, with it's 80 hour working weeks, zero health care, zero workers rights, next to zero holiday entitlement, mass school shootings, ridiculous gun laws, crap food with all it's additives, a police 'service' that acts more like a force of occupation, and me thinking they can keep it for themselves.

I'm quite happy living without all that shit, and Europe being 'destroyed' by China is a far too melodramatic remark for me to take seriously.
 
Discussions about China potentially imitating the US in a military invasion are somewhat hasty, primarily because most people in the West may lack a framework for understanding such issues.

First, a key theme of Chinese diplomacy is "maintaining the post-World War II international order." This explains the grand commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War and the War of Resistance Against Japan on September 3, 2025. This implicitly reflects respect for the international order based on the UN system. The post-World War II international order does not oppose the existence of the United States as a major force for maintaining world peace. This is why the Chinese government often expresses the view that it "does not seek to replace the United States' international position." In fact, a significant portion of China's overseas national interests depend, to some extent, on the international order maintained by the United States. If the United States were to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, China would have to expend far more resources to maintain the same order, which would be a considerable headache. For example, China must immediately prepare for military action against Japan to ensure that Japan does not possess nuclear weapons. This task is currently being performed by the United States.

Second, another important issue is international trade. China's accession to the WTO in 2000 is considered a significant event. When the WTO is no longer as effective as it should be, the Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS have inherited this idea. International trade itself requires a peaceful environment. War anywhere disrupts normal trade, forcing countries to choose sides and subjecting trade to excessive political influence. This is precisely why the Russia-Ukraine conflict has had a significant negative impact on China-European trade. China does not want such events to occur.

Within this broad framework, no rational Chinese person would actually consider "invading Australia as a key strategic objective." In reality, most Chinese people believe that resolving the Taiwan issue and the territorial dispute with India will essentially reduce the necessity for external warfare for a considerable period of time.

For Australia, the most likely reason to be attacked by Chinese military power stems from its active involvement in the Taiwan issue. This is an ironic situation: the more Australians claim they must view China as a threat, and the more deeply they participate in future conflicts around Taiwan, the greater the security risks they face. The very logic Australians use to maintain their national security is itself threatening Australia's national security.
 
Alvin-blue-qhd said:
Discussions about China potentially imitating the US in a military invasion are somewhat hasty, primarily because most people in the West may lack a framework for understanding such issues.

First, a key theme of Chinese diplomacy is "maintaining the post-World War II international order." This explains the grand commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War and the War of Resistance Against Japan on September 3, 2025. This implicitly reflects respect for the international order based on the UN system. The post-World War II international order does not oppose the existence of the United States as a major force for maintaining world peace. This is why the Chinese government often expresses the view that it "does not seek to replace the United States' international position." In fact, a significant portion of China's overseas national interests depend, to some extent, on the international order maintained by the United States. If the United States were to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, China would have to expend far more resources to maintain the same order, which would be a considerable headache. For example, China must immediately prepare for military action against Japan to ensure that Japan does not possess nuclear weapons. This task is currently being performed by the United States.

Second, another important issue is international trade. China's accession to the WTO in 2000 is considered a significant event. When the WTO is no longer as effective as it should be, the Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS have inherited this idea. International trade itself requires a peaceful environment. War anywhere disrupts normal trade, forcing countries to choose sides and subjecting trade to excessive political influence. This is precisely why the Russia-Ukraine conflict has had a significant negative impact on China-European trade. China does not want such events to occur.

Within this broad framework, no rational Chinese person would actually consider "invading Australia as a key strategic objective." In reality, most Chinese people believe that resolving the Taiwan issue and the territorial dispute with India will essentially reduce the necessity for external warfare for a considerable period of time.

For Australia, the most likely reason to be attacked by Chinese military power stems from its active involvement in the Taiwan issue. This is an ironic situation: the more Australians claim they must view China as a threat, and the more deeply they participate in future conflicts around Taiwan, the greater the security risks they face. The very logic Australians use to maintain their national security is itself threatening Australia's national security.
Click to expand...
I don't think any Australian who isn't consumed by the Murdoch monopoly on Australian media is immediately concerned about China.
 
hilts said:
That was quite one of the most disturbing uses of a graph I've seen.

Israel - are we slacking with our genocide? Can we do more?

King Herod would be turning in his grave at this half hearted attempt at the killing of toddlers.
Click to expand...
I had to double check it twice. Now Colin is no fool so he didn’t post it by accident. Disgraceful.
 
Cigs&Alc said:
I don't think any Australian who isn't consumed by the Murdoch monopoly on Australian media is immediately concerned about China.
Click to expand...
Probably true mate but I dismiss these ideas about China invading Australia due mainly to the huge American presence here.

Which btw is due to grow.

  • Strategic Basing & Infrastructure:
    • Expansion at RAAF Bases like Tindal, Learmonth, Scherger, and Curtin for US Air Force and Navy operations.
    • Development of logistics hubs, including a future enduring site in Queensland (Bandiana) for stockpiling equipment.
    • Increased access for U.S. Navy vessels, including nuclear attack submarines, at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
  • Air Assets: Plans include rotations of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers through RAAF Base Tindal.
  • Naval & Communications: The existing Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in Exmouth and the sensitive Pine Gap facility remain key.
  • Future Growth: Discussions involve potentially hosting larger, more permanent U.S. forces, including Marine Expeditionary Brigades of up to 10,000-16,000 personnel.
Why the Increase?
This buildup is part of the U.S. strategy to counter China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific, turning Australia into a vital hub for power projection and deterrence.

My take on this is thank God for the USA!
 
Bill Walker said:
Probably true mate but I dismiss these ideas about China invading Australia due mainly to the huge American presence here.

Which btw is due to grow.

  • Strategic Basing & Infrastructure:
    • Expansion at RAAF Bases like Tindal, Learmonth, Scherger, and Curtin for US Air Force and Navy operations.
    • Development of logistics hubs, including a future enduring site in Queensland (Bandiana) for stockpiling equipment.
    • Increased access for U.S. Navy vessels, including nuclear attack submarines, at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
  • Air Assets: Plans include rotations of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers through RAAF Base Tindal.
  • Naval & Communications: The existing Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in Exmouth and the sensitive Pine Gap facility remain key.
  • Future Growth: Discussions involve potentially hosting larger, more permanent U.S. forces, including Marine Expeditionary Brigades of up to 10,000-16,000 personnel.
Why the Increase?
This buildup is part of the U.S. strategy to counter China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific, turning Australia into a vital hub for power projection and deterrence.

My take on this is thank God for the USA!
Click to expand...
This is why I say that Australians' perception of national security is dangerous for Australia. The US Indo-Pacific strategy is actually a rather dangerous one, aiming to contain China through military deterrence (including blocking its sea lanes), posing a direct threat to China's national security. And you have to consider that the US may not be able to win this war. If a full-scale war breaks out between China and the US, and the US loses, Australia could become a province of China. Too many white people simply revel in the sense of power that "if the US calls on, all the allies will respond, and China will be defeated," without ever seriously considering whether this idea could become a reality.
 
Alvin-blue-qhd said:
This is why I say that Australians' perception of national security is dangerous for Australia. The US Indo-Pacific strategy is actually a rather dangerous one, aiming to contain China through military deterrence (including blocking its sea lanes), posing a direct threat to China's national security. And you have to consider that the US may not be able to win this war. If a full-scale war breaks out between China and the US, and the US loses, Australia could become a province of China. Too many white people simply revel in the sense of power that "if the US calls on, all the allies will respond, and China will be defeated," without ever seriously considering whether this idea could become a reality.
Click to expand...
A full scale war isn't going to happen. Neither side wants that.
 
Blue and true said:
I suppose I meant the security of diplomatic goodwill, along with the economic securities it brought. We've isolated ourselves for the sake of populist chest-thumping, and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Well Putin invades the Ukraine and the EU and the UK do some financial penalties and help out Ukraine with arms. Some European countries are stronger in their help than others. This would have happened whether we were in the EU or not. Germany started off soft out of self interest with gas.
When the shit hits the fan countries either join together or dont. Unfortunately the EU and Nato are pretty useless at making despots stop being despots.
People like to blame Brexit for everything but this is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Europe will not stand up to the US in any meaningful way because they have no leverage that doesn't cause self harm.
 
Cigs&Alc said:
A full scale war isn't going to happen. Neither side wants that.
Click to expand...
I don't think the situation is that optimistic. Americans are quite arrogant and overconfident; they believe the US is bound to win. This means that deterrence, which could have ensured peace, is not actually recognized by the Americans.
 
hilts said:
Well Putin invades the Ukraine and the EU and the UK do some financial penalties and help out Ukraine with arms. Some European countries are stronger in their help than others. This would have happened whether we were in the EU or not. Germany started off soft out of self interest with gas.
When the shit hits the fan countries either join together or dont. Unfortunately the EU and Nato are pretty useless at making despots stop being despots.
People like to blame Brexit for everything but this is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Europe will not stand up to the US in any meaningful way because they have no leverage that doesn't cause self harm.
Click to expand...
In fairness, it's not the EU's job to stop despots being despots. Nor is it NATO's. Putin's invasion, regionally, was unprecedented in its gravity; so that's different and we have supplied Ukraine with support to stop Putin being a despot. Otherwise, NATO exists as a defensive alliance. It exists as a deterrent, and post-WWII it has worked commendably. Trump is now actively trying to destabilise that.

Anyway, my main point was that our relationship with our European partners has soured, through our own doing. The precariousness of this is now heightened because of what's happening in the US.
 
NPBlue said:
What are you blathering on about? We have been in an alliance with the USA militarily since the 2nd world war, and it is the USA that is now fracturing that alliance.

Threatening to invade a NATO country because it will look good on a map is hardly a recipe for closer collaboration, far from it, and that single threat on it's own has changed the way not only Europe, but the world, views it's association with the USA. It's time to distance ourselves from an unreliable partner, and Europe has the means and the motivation to achieve it.

I'll remind you that the USA has never won a war on it's own, in spite of it's perceived military magnificance, and industry has been flooding out of the USA to China and other countries for years. Don't say it wouldn't be allowed to happen, because it has.

My simple remark about not wanting to be a part of the USA is based on me looking at that country, with it's 80 hour working weeks, zero health care, zero workers rights, next to zero holiday entitlement, mass school shootings, ridiculous gun laws, crap food with all it's additives, a police 'service' that acts more like a force of occupation, and me thinking they can keep it for themselves.

I'm quite happy living without all that shit, and Europe being 'destroyed' by China is a far too melodramatic remark for me to take seriously.
Click to expand...
Read that twice I enjoyed it that much
 
Bill Walker said:
Probably true mate but I dismiss these ideas about China invading Australia due mainly to the huge American presence here.

Which btw is due to grow.

  • Strategic Basing & Infrastructure:
    • Expansion at RAAF Bases like Tindal, Learmonth, Scherger, and Curtin for US Air Force and Navy operations.
    • Development of logistics hubs, including a future enduring site in Queensland (Bandiana) for stockpiling equipment.
    • Increased access for U.S. Navy vessels, including nuclear attack submarines, at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
  • Air Assets: Plans include rotations of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers through RAAF Base Tindal.
  • Naval & Communications: The existing Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in Exmouth and the sensitive Pine Gap facility remain key.
  • Future Growth: Discussions involve potentially hosting larger, more permanent U.S. forces, including Marine Expeditionary Brigades of up to 10,000-16,000 personnel.
Why the Increase?
This buildup is part of the U.S. strategy to counter China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific, turning Australia into a vital hub for power projection and deterrence.

My take on this is thank God for the USA!
Click to expand...
And when they want Tasmanian minerals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top