Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

Remove this Banner Ad

Tas

Premium Platinum
Dec 23, 2002
55,501
42,969
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
Some pretty dramatic rewriting of economic history in the West going on here.

Australian and US prosperity literally built on the ongoing genocide of the people who were on this land first.

British imperial greatness built off the deaths of tens of millions of Indians alone.

The great Bengal Famine (one of many that went right into the 20th century) of the late 1700s was directly caused by the EIC funneling billions back to England, it killed millions.

If we want to compare body counts of post 1949 China against the Anglophone capitalist imperium, the Chinese come off far better.
Land rights isn't a sprint, it is a marathon. Being first anywhere is irrelevant, it all comes down to can you stop someone else taking it from you or not. Malaysia and the Philippines are learning this lesson as China plunders their protected economic zones and China says, "what are you going to do about it?"

It was an inevitability that the indigenous people would lose this land, it came down to who was going to take it and how brutal they would be to the indigenous population. That can be pretty harsh to say, but the reality is the foreign powers who held onto foreign land pretty much did a number on the indigenous population. The Turks rounded up all the Greeks and Armenians in or around Constantinople who could trace their ancestry back to the original settlers and dumped them in the middle of a desert where most died trying to make it back to civilisation, most that made it back were sent to concentration camps. This was between 1915 and 1917. Turkey to this day claims this wasn't a wrongful act. But then again this is the same people trying to exterminate the Kurds like they are a plague of rats.

My ancestors first colonised half of europe, there is nobody lining up to give that land over. Constantinople was given back to the Greeks after WWI but the reality is they couldn't hold on to it, what land rights they once had are forfeited by conquest. Once you get your arse handed to you in a conflict, that is it, you have nothing and nobody owes you anything. That is the reality everyone of us face if some foreign powers tries to come here like the Japanese did during WW2. If we lost we would have had the Kokoda treatment and no amount of teary eyed lamentation would have done squat to change it.

The reality is that nothing we do here will ever be enough, that is the message a lot of indigenous are projecting. The reality is going to be eventually, the population will stop trying to appease, because it is a futile endeavour to try and appease. What you want or think you are owed will never come to be, the reality is what little has been given back will at some point in the future be abolished eventually when the vast majority of people will be genetically indistinguishable due to cross breeding and it is not going to take a lot of generations for that to happen.

I wish things were different and I wish the indigenous had their own country and they didn't get brutalised. But, life goes on. I think when you compare what was done hundreds of years ago to what is being done now I think is trying on some level to trivialise what is an abhorrent lack of humanity in a time period where there is no need to squabble over resources. Japan has more or less zero natural resources and is one of the richest nations in the world, they have just modernised and become rich from manufacturing and reaching an excellence in terms of technology. China doesn't need to rape and pillage in this day and age. Russia doesn't need to be setting off cold and hot wars. USA doesn't need to be destabilizing regions. There is a lot of abhorrent sh*t going on now for the sake of greed and power. We weren't as enlightened in the past.

I think how people are behaving now is more critical than how people got by in the past. Our government also needs to stop manufacturing consent by just going along with every nefarious USA plot. We have numerous politicians who are guilty of war crimes and human rights abuse, they might not be held to account now or during their lifetime but history will not be kind to them. There will be a reckoning and they are going to condemn their future generations of bearing that burden.
 

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
9,352
17,720
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Land rights isn't a sprint, it is a marathon. Being first anywhere is irrelevant, it all comes down to can you stop someone else taking it from you or not. Malaysia and the Philippines are learning this lesson as China plunders their protected economic zones and China says, "what are you going to do about it?"

It was an inevitability that the indigenous people would lose this land, it came down to who was going to take it and how brutal they would be to the indigenous population. That can be pretty harsh to say, but the reality is the foreign powers who held onto foreign land pretty much did a number on the indigenous population. The Turks rounded up all the Greeks and Armenians in or around Constantinople who could trace their ancestry back to the original settlers and dumped them in the middle of a desert where most died trying to make it back to civilisation, most that made it back were sent to concentration camps. This was between 1915 and 1917. Turkey to this day claims this wasn't a wrongful act. But then again this is the same people trying to exterminate the Kurds like they are a plague of rats.

My ancestors first colonised half of europe, there is nobody lining up to give that land over. Constantinople was given back to the Greeks after WWI but the reality is they couldn't hold on to it, what land rights they once had are forfeited by conquest. Once you get your arse handed to you in a conflict, that is it, you have nothing and nobody owes you anything. That is the reality everyone of us face if some foreign powers tries to come here like the Japanese did during WW2. If we lost we would have had the Kokoda treatment and no amount of teary eyed lamentation would have done squat to change it.

The reality is that nothing we do here will ever be enough, that is the message a lot of indigenous are projecting. The reality is going to be eventually, the population will stop trying to appease, because it is a futile endeavour to try and appease. What you want or think you are owed will never come to be, the reality is what little has been given back will at some point in the future be abolished eventually when the vast majority of people will be genetically indistinguishable due to cross breeding and it is not going to take a lot of generations for that to happen.

I wish things were different and I wish the indigenous had their own country and they didn't get brutalised. But, life goes on. I think when you compare what was done hundreds of years ago to what is being done now I think is trying on some level to trivialise what is an abhorrent lack of humanity in a time period where there is no need to squabble over resources. Japan has more or less zero natural resources and is one of the richest nations in the world, they have just modernised and become rich from manufacturing and reaching an excellence in terms of technology. China doesn't need to rape and pillage in this day and age. Russia doesn't need to be setting off cold and hot wars. USA doesn't need to be destabilizing regions. There is a lot of abhorrent sh*t going on now for the sake of greed and power. We weren't as enlightened in the past.

I think how people are behaving now is more critical than how people got by in the past. Our government also needs to stop manufacturing consent by just going along with every nefarious USA plot. We have numerous politicians who are guilty of war crimes and human rights abuse, they might not be held to account now or during their lifetime but history will not be kind to them. There will be a reckoning and they are going to condemn their future generations of bearing that burden.
I’ll put it to you, China’s land grab to the South China Sea has nothing to do with land or fishing rights but oil…
If the west’s plan to do stabilise the ME including Iran, then off to Venezuela. That pretty much covers most of the easy to get to oil reserves.
And you can’t power a tank without oil.. which would pretty much render a super power useless, if there was a blockade.
 
Last edited:

Tas

Premium Platinum
Dec 23, 2002
55,501
42,969
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
I’ll put it to you, China’s land grab to the South China Sea has nothing to do with land or fishing rights but oil…
If the west’s plan to do stabilise the ME including Iran, then off to Venezuela. That pretty much covers most of the easy to get to oil reserves.
And you can’t power a tank without oil.. which would pretty much render a super power useless, if their was a blockade.
China's fishing fleet is their economic vanguard. Once countries do not stop them over fish, China will then say everything else is fair game, next will come the oil platforms.

The point is, America doesn't need the oil. Since they started to frack they unearthed so much oil that they are now a net exporter of oil. You no longer need massive concentrated deposits when you can flush it out from wide area.

Oil is such is a pissweak reason to kill millions of people and cause so much harm, it is going to be a short-term resource. The world is moving away from fossil fuels, if you are going to be fighting over any natural resource, it would make more sense to fight over rare earths, lithium, etc.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Kangaroos4eva

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2012
42,148
77,626
QLD
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
I’ll put it to you, China’s land grab to the South China Sea has nothing to do with land or fishing rights but oil…
If the west’s plan to do stabilise the ME including Iran, then off to Venezuela. That pretty much covers most of the easy to get to oil reserves.
And you can’t power a tank without oil.. which would pretty much render a super power useless, if their was a blockade.
It is multifaceted. It has to do with shipping lanes, resources, the rise of nationalism, history with past imperial powers (Japan, UK, etc), Taiwan and the influence of the Island Chain Strategy. So basically, a form of Cold War-style containment fears has principally driven Chinese maritime strategy since at least the 1980s.

Taiwan was a source of tension during this period as Beijing’s militarisation of the South China Sea threatened the First Island Chain. The first chain is linked to the broader Island Chain Strategy, a regional security concept created in 1951 by John Foster Dulles, a future Secretary of State, outlining a prospective defence perimeter to contain communist expansion.[1] The strategy contains three chains with the First Island Chain stretching from the Kuril Islands, near northern Japan, to northern Borneo and contains the South China Sea.[2] The second chain extends from Japan to Micronesia and the third is linked to Hawaii’s defence.[3] However, the Island Chain concept initially carried little actual policy weight in Washington, but later formed the central lens of Chinese security views by the late 1980s.[4] China’s use of the chain strategy, and its escalated geostrategic rivalry with America, helped ensure that the island chains became a recurring theme in US defence papers.[5] USN planners now believe that the First Island Chain is the most ideal to halt the PLAN from dominating the western Pacific, thereby increasing the importance of freedom of navigation and nearby Taiwan.[6] Australia was consequently concerned that Beijing’s deployment of military assets near Taiwan in April 2020, and ongoing militarisation of the South China Sea, may destabilise the region to the point of war.[7]
 

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
9,352
17,720
AFL Club
North Melbourne
China's fishing fleet is their economic vanguard. Once countries do not stop them over fish, China will then say everything else is fair game, next will come the oil platforms.

The point is, America doesn't need the oil. Since they started to frack the they unearthed so much oil that they are now a net exporter of oil. You no longer need massive concentrated deposits when you can flush it out from wide area.

Oil is such is a pissweak reason to kill millions of people and cause so much harm, it is going to be a short-term resource. The world is moving away from fossil fuels, if you are going to be fighting over any natural resource, it would make more sense to fight over rare earths, lithium, etc.
I’d love to see the battery bank for a 62 tonne Abrahams tank..
as much as some things are moving toward renewables, some things stay the same..
 
Last edited:

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
9,352
17,720
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It is multifaceted. It has to do with shipping lanes, resources, the rise of nationalism, history with past imperial powers (Japan, UK, etc), Taiwan and the influence of the Island Chain Strategy. So basically, a form of Cold War-style containment fears has principally driven Chinese maritime strategy since at least the 1980s.

Taiwan was a source of tension during this period as Beijing’s militarisation of the South China Sea threatened the First Island Chain. The first chain is linked to the broader Island Chain Strategy, a regional security concept created in 1951 by John Foster Dulles, a future Secretary of State, outlining a prospective defence perimeter to contain communist expansion.[1] The strategy contains three chains with the First Island Chain stretching from the Kuril Islands, near northern Japan, to northern Borneo and contains the South China Sea.[2] The second chain extends from Japan to Micronesia and the third is linked to Hawaii’s defence.[3] However, the Island Chain concept initially carried little actual policy weight in Washington, but later formed the central lens of Chinese security views by the late 1980s.[4] China’s use of the chain strategy, and its escalated geostrategic rivalry with America, helped ensure that the island chains became a recurring theme in US defence papers.[5] USN planners now believe that the First Island Chain is the most ideal to halt the PLAN from dominating the western Pacific, thereby increasing the importance of freedom of navigation and nearby Taiwan.[6] Australia was consequently concerned that Beijing’s deployment of military assets near Taiwan in April 2020, and ongoing militarisation of the South China Sea, may destabilise the region to the point of war.[7]
The reason the China broke the first containment line is because they could see the writing was on the wall.
US build up of military bases around China over the last 50 years, and then the targeting of Chinese friendly oil nations. for any chance of keeping a war machine going they need access to oil.

Question will remain, whether Putin will stick fat or like all his forefathers and stab China in the back.. at a guess I’ll go with the latter.
 

Tas

Premium Platinum
Dec 23, 2002
55,501
42,969
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
I’d love to see the battery bank for an 62 tonne Abrahams tank..
as much as some things are moving away from renewables, some things stay the same..

It is less about going green, more about being less oil dependant.
 

Chadwiko

@ChadwikoRCC
Sep 25, 2004
14,024
11,584
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Washington Redskins, Boston Celtics
Whilst not dismissing the 'threat' of China on an international scale, so many people overlook that age-old adage; all politics are domestic.

China is a ticking time-bomb internally; a plummeting birth rate combined with a lack of opportunity for a growing middle class, and a huge (and rapidly growing) class disparity has them heading towards an internal catastrophe.

That's partly why China is posturing so aggressively internationally; it's the classic "give people an enemy abroad so they don't make the ruling class at home the enemy".
 

Kangaroos4eva

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2012
42,148
77,626
QLD
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
The reason the China broke the first containment line is because they could see the writing was on the wall.
US build up of military bases around China over the last 50 years, and then the targeting of Chinese friendly oil nations. for any chance of keeping a war machine going they need access to oil.

Question will remain, whether Putin will stick fat or like all his forefathers and stab China in the back.. at a guess I’ll go with the latter.
Yes and no. The 1972-1996 period was fairly peaceful in relations, but China only adopted the containment mentality in the late 1980s. In saying that, Taiwan has always been the sore point. The US didn’t really think of contemporary containment until the Taiwan strait crisis in the late 1990s. Then they started talking about regional ballistic missile defence. The war on terror cooled things again until the GFC and the costly Iraq war made it clear that the US was in decline by 2009.

US bases have only been modernised since 2009. That includes the marine deployment to Darwin. The rivalry has now spiraled.
 
Last edited:

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
9,352
17,720
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Whilst not dismissing the 'threat' of China on an international scale, so many people overlook that age-old adage; all politics are domestic.

China is a ticking time-bomb internally; a plummeting birth rate combined with a lack of opportunity for a growing middle class, and a huge (and rapidly growing) class disparity has them heading towards an internal catastrophe.

That's partly why China is posturing so aggressively internationally; it's the classic "give people an enemy abroad so they don't make the ruling class at home the enemy".
I tend to agree with this, we’re more likely to see a break up of provinces like the old ussr without a shot being fired, or very minimal hot warfare.
the war machine takes its percentage of gdp off every country for privilege.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
76,812
145,436
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
9,352
17,720
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yes and no. The 1972-1996 period was fairly peaceful in relations, but China only adopted the containment mentality in the late 1980s. In saying that, Taiwan has always been the sore point. The US didn’t really think of containment until the Taiwan strait crisis in the late 1990s. Then they started talking about regional ballistic missile defence. The war on terror cooled things again until the GFC and the costly Iraq war made it clear that the US was in decline by 2009.

US bases have only been modernised since 2009. That includes the marine deployment to Darwin. The rivalry has now spiraled.
Agree to disagree, American foreign policy doesn’t change and the build up for China has been going on for 50 years.
Hell in 2015, the west, US/AU and partners rehearsed a blockade that would cut China’s lifelines of oil, trade and raw materials.
So it’s been coming for a while and the South China Sea escapade is China responding to the west, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Val Keating

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 27, 2017
12,320
26,526
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Whilst not dismissing the 'threat' of China on an international scale, so many people overlook that age-old adage; all politics are domestic.

China is a ticking time-bomb internally; a plummeting birth rate combined with a lack of opportunity for a growing middle class, and a huge (and rapidly growing) class disparity has them heading towards an internal catastrophe.

That's partly why China is posturing so aggressively internationally; it's the classic "give people an enemy abroad so they don't make the ruling class at home the enemy".
Birth rate is plummeting across the board. Dr. Shanna Swan did some amazing research on it. It’s basically all the chemicals leaking out of plastics into our food is causing male genitals to become smaller and sperm count is falling at 1% per year.

It’s actually crazy that it’s not a headline story on every news outlet across the world.


 

Kangaroos4eva

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2012
42,148
77,626
QLD
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
Agree to disagree, American foreign policy doesn’t change and the build up for China has been going on for 50 years.
Hell in 2015, the west, US/AU and partners rehearsed a blockade that would cut China’s lifelines of oil, trade and raw materials. It’s been coming for a while.
All good. I am arguing from a strategic standpoint.

The 2015 exercise is tied to the Air/Sea Battle Concept unofficially developed in 2009 by the USN and officially released in 2010. The notion of a deliberate containment strategy has been building more so from the 1990s, but officially since the 2009/10 period.

The US bases in the Pacific during the Cold War were principally orientated towards helping the US project global power and ensure the principal enemy, the Soviet Union, could not get a foothold in the Asia-Pacific. It was not necessarily aimed at the containment of China as highlighted by the fact that Dulles' Island Chain Containment Strategy had bugger all influence in Washington and was not used in foreign policy formulation. The US was more concerned about Chinese/Soviet influence in Vietnam in the 1950s and remained principally focused on Indochina to at least 1969.

After Vietnam, the USA's principal regional concern was Soviet naval vessels in the Indian Ocean due to its proximity to the Middle East.
 
Last edited:

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
9,352
17,720
AFL Club
North Melbourne
All good. I am arguing from a strategic standpoint.

The 2015 exercise is tied to the Air/Sea Battle Concept unofficially developed in 2009 by the USN and officially released in 2010. The notion of a deliberate containment strategy has been building more so from the 1990s, but officially since the 2009/10 period.

The US bases in the Pacific during the Cold War were principally orientated towards helping the US project global power and ensure the principal enemy, the Soviet Union, could not get a foothold in the Asia-Pacific. It was not necessarily aimed at the containment of China as highlighted by the fact that Dulles' Island Chain Containment Strategy had bugger all influence in Washington and was not used in foreign policy formulation. The US was more concerned about Chinese/Soviet influence in Vietnam during the Indochina Crisis and remained principally focused on Indochina to at least 1969. After Vietnam, the USA's principal concern was Soviet naval vessels in the Indian Ocean due to its proximity to the Middle East.
Oh I completely agree there’s priorities, but that still doesnt change the fact that the build up has been happening. It’s just ramped up to the number 1 with Obama’s so called pivot to the pacific.
 

koshari

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 24, 2011
13,331
18,192
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The vast majority of the world?

They don't have a network of military bases around the world. They didn't invade Iraq. They haven't occupied parts of Syria. They're not picking fights with countries like Iran that are thousands of miles from Beijing.

"Is there anyone the US isn't fighting with" is the better question.
they have a loose alliance with russia, based on mutual mistrust. dunno that the ruskies are still complestely happy that they pirated their fighter and gun designs.

they also gave a lose undertaking that the Liaoning wouldnt be recommisioned as one of the conditions of purchase. but we all knew that was going to happen.
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
18,913
45,051
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The concrete evidence has never shown up to prove that they actually did. Australian historians, including my supervisor who wrote Evatt’s biography and is no fan of the alliance, have largely reaffirmed the view that there is scant evidence. Peter Edwards, who wrote of Australia’s nasty involvements in Southeast Asia from 1948-65, has also dismissed it. Whitlam later wrote that Kerr did not need any encouragement from the CIA.


Long story short, it is largely unproven and will likely remain so.
Chris Boyce, who was reading the cables from the Canberra embassy back to Langley, disagrees.
 

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
9,352
17,720
AFL Club
North Melbourne
they have a loose alliance with russia, based on mutual mistrust. dunno that the ruskies are still complestely happy that they pirated their fighter and gun designs.

they also gave a lose undertaking that the Liaoning wouldnt be recommisioned as one of the conditions of purchase. but we all knew that was going to happen.
How far do we want to go back, HeilongJiang/Amur is still a sore point after 400 odd years..

and a lot of Chinese still see the Russians as part of the great humiliation when the tzars were in power.
 

SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay

Seasoned Football Analyst
Aug 21, 2018
18,913
45,051
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Oil is such is a pissweak reason to kill millions of people and cause so much harm, it is going to be a short-term resource. The world is moving away from fossil fuels, if you are going to be fighting over any natural resource, it would make more sense to fight over rare earths, lithium, etc.
Oil isn't going anywhere for military purposes for centuries.

The US already deposed a democratic government in Bolivia for its lithium.
 

koshari

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 24, 2011
13,331
18,192
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Oil is such is a pissweak reason to kill millions of people and cause so much harm, it is going to be a short-term resource. The world is moving away from fossil fuels, if you are going to be fighting over any natural resource, it would make more sense to fight over rare earths, lithium, etc.
believing in deities is a pretty poor reason as well, the underlying reason is really greed though, oil and religion are really just proxies.
 

Remove this Banner Ad