Australia - you're standing in it
@Hiccups
Sorry dude but ive got no time for you, while i dont agree with guys like Guy, Andy (both), Supa etc at least they can have a conversation of some sort.
You on the other hand only jump into a conversation randomly with some smart arse one liner comment, so sorry you dont deserve having your question answered (the answer is super obvious anyway)
Delusional as usual ,indo wrote “ Im seeing a clear pattern here, you love to hate on Jacinta Price and Avi, i bet you hate Real Ruskin too?
I know why, because you dont like people of colour who dont think and act the way you think they should.
It's clear that you think people need to fit into some broad group think, you have made this clear with the Jewish community stuff. “ what’s clear indo is those that you choose to follow are loose units.
Supafreak wrote:Delusional as usual ,indo wrote “ Im seeing a clear pattern here, you love to hate on Jacinta Price and Avi, i bet you hate Real Ruskin too?
I know why, because you dont like people of colour who dont think and act the way you think they should.
It's clear that you think people need to fit into some broad group think, you have made this clear with the Jewish community stuff. “ what’s clear indo is those that you choose to follow are loose units.
indo out here going for the, trans rights activists are really misogynists so they won't let women speak, approach.
And yet another perspective....
Really not seeing any real upside to this deal....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/21/gareth-evans-the-t...
@andy-mac these questions are perfectly legit and someone should provide some answers. To be honest, I don't know anything about the subs so I keep myself out of the discussion and I don't follow news on this topic. Are we saying that no one briefed the public or at least provided some official view on these types of questions?
Albo is totally trapped.
In the early days of discussions, Scommo might have been able to steer a different path and, behind closed doors and to consider the issues Gareth and Keating have raised.
Once you stand next to the POTUS in a joint announcement as he has done, pulling out is pretty much a career ending move preceded by a suitable period of torture:
- media ridicule nationally and in the US,
- opposition wedging,
- US icy cold shoulders at every turn
- phone calls to all US people of note not returned
- cancelled invites to major events,
- being placed on the loser table at US hosted events sitting outside the toilets with nobodies
- visuals of backs turned to little Albo as he tries to talk to other leaders at events
- embarrassing leaks
etc
There are so many ways they can flail him alive without even pulling the Kerr option if they really want to if he embarrassed them or upset long laid plans.
@info unflinchingly leaping logic since Adam was a boy …. carry on knucklehead before your village calls
I'll have a go at Mr Evans' points
1) What is most suitable has changed as the strategic situation has deteriorated. 20 son of Collins, where will you get the crews anyway? Difference in detectability and speed/endurance too.
He mentions why shift from a defence of Australia to a forward positioned posture. If you go through the history, we've been forward positioned in alliances for more of the time than 'defence of Australia' focussed. Think about Gallipoli, the Western Front, Tobruk and N Africa, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq - mostly forward positioned. Defence of Australia in 1942-4 and from the 1987 White paper. It oscillates, as he should know.
2) Are we sovereign, are we part of alliances? Have we been sovereign, have we been part of alliances in the past? I said upthread, if we want to be truly sovereign as an island power, we will need a navy bigger than the nearest two rivals, combined. Which isn't realistic.
3) Will the security we think we're purchasing be worth it? Nothing's worth a loss of sovereignty. Are we in an accelerating period, like the late 1930's in Europe? Would France of then pick a time like now to go it alone? Or Britain of that time? They both chose alliances, one had the sea as a barrier and a strong navy.
Whether the US would act for us? Ask what the strategic situation would look like for them if we were to be overcome. The sea powers would lose the western Pacific and Indian oceans. If you were the US, would you let Australia's geopolitical location go?
indo-dreaming wrote:@Hiccups
Sorry dude but ive got no time for you, while i dont agree with guys like Guy, Andy (both), Supa etc at least they can have a conversation of some sort.
You on the other hand only jump into a conversation randomly with some smart arse one liner comment, so sorry you dont deserve having your question answered (the answer is super obvious anyway)
GuySmiley wrote:@info unflinchingly leaping logic since Adam was a boy …. carry on knucklehead before your village calls
Fark i was way to generous with including Guy in that list, not involved in the conversation but comes in just spewing pointless brain dead nonsense abuse.
Anyway its kind of sad that the whole point of the rally has received very little attention in media or here, and thats about biological women having the right to safe spaces, the women at the rally are like the polar opposite of the Nazis they are radical feminist (TERFS) many from the left.
frog wrote:Albo is totally trapped.
In the early days of discussions, Scommo might have been able to steer a different path and, behind closed doors and to consider the issues Gareth and Keating have raised.
Once you stand next to the POTUS in a joint announcement as he has done, pulling out is pretty much a career ending move preceded by a suitable period of torture:
- media ridicule nationally and in the US,
- opposition wedging,
- US icy cold shoulders at every turn
- phone calls to all US people of note not returned
- cancelled invites to major events,
- being placed on the loser table at US hosted events sitting outside the toilets with nobodies
- visuals of backs turned to little Albo as he tries to talk to other leaders at events
- embarrassing leaks
etcThere are so many ways they can flail him alive without even pulling the Kerr option if they really want to if he embarrassed them or upset long laid plans.
Yep good points.
Had not looked at that angle.
flollo wrote:@andy-mac these questions are perfectly legit and someone should provide some answers. To be honest, I don't know anything about the subs so I keep myself out of the discussion and I don't follow news on this topic. Are we saying that no one briefed the public or at least provided some official view on these types of questions?
Yep it seems it was sprung onto Australia with Morrison. @frog seems to have explained situation well as for where it left Albo.
Will be interesting to see how it all plays out in mid to long term. My guess will not be a smooth process, and wouldn't be surprised if it all goes pear shaped, just hope Australia hasn't transferred too much $$$ to USA before it's cancelled or price doubles before delivery etc.
Anyway interesting times ..
@indo , you do know who Tommy Robinson is yeah ? The bloke that Avi referred to as his brother and leader in the Twitter post I put up . It’s old footage yes but do you also follow Robinson ? https://twitter.com/hakicat/status/1637076027099709440?s=46&t=5RczxwAfzXe7hKRZb3LMIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)
I’m starting to see a pattern here.
frog wrote:Albo is totally trapped.
In the early days of discussions, Scommo might have been able to steer a different path and, behind closed doors and to consider the issues Gareth and Keating have raised.
Once you stand next to the POTUS in a joint announcement as he has done, pulling out is pretty much a career ending move preceded by a suitable period of torture:
- media ridicule nationally and in the US,
- opposition wedging,
- US icy cold shoulders at every turn
- phone calls to all US people of note not returned
- cancelled invites to major events,
- being placed on the loser table at US hosted events sitting outside the toilets with nobodies
- visuals of backs turned to little Albo as he tries to talk to other leaders at events
- embarrassing leaks
etcThere are so many ways they can flail him alive without even pulling the Kerr option if they really want to if he embarrassed them or upset long laid plans.
That photo of Albo and the British PM with Biden was the full weekend at Bernie’s.
Supafreak wrote:@indo , you do know who Tommy Robinson is yeah ? The bloke that Avi referred to as his brother and leader in the Twitter post I put up . It’s old footage yes but do you also follow Robinson ? https://twitter.com/hakicat/status/1637076027099709440?s=46&t=5RczxwAfzX.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)
Heard of him from that era but im not a fan of him, from memory he was a UK politians i recall him being controversial for his views on immigration and muslims.
BTW. Im not even going to bother clicking on the Wkipedia link cause it wont be accurate in anyway wikipedia bios on people like this are often pretty much garbage and should be taken with a huge grain of salt, people like him often become victims of smear campaigns by far left Wiki group editor's, that continually change any info to suit their agenda even statements with sources are often based on media articles that are nothing more than trashy opinion pieces and often bear no resemblance whatsoever to the person they describe and sadly the person they are talking about generally cant do anything about it, unless they have big money to challenge Wikipedia with defamation etc
I noticed that TERF from UK that was part of rally was complaining about this too, its pretty farked up.
Anyway keep hating dude.
You do have a point about wiki , you could simply google the name and look at the variety of stories from a wide range of media. Remember this is who Avi looks up to . Birds of a feather me thinks . Keep on defending.
Very good video on understanding the bigger picture, and maybe we can go for a trifecta Supa?
indo-dreaming wrote:Anyway its kind of sad that the whole point of the rally has received very little attention in media or here, and thats about biological women having the right to safe spaces, the women at the rally are like the polar opposite of the Nazis they are radical feminist (TERFS) many from the left.
That rally was centred around Kellie-Jane Keen, "who has used the pseudonym Posie Parker, has a history of connections with the far right. She has previously taken a selfie with a Norwegian neo-Nazi, praised anti-Islam activist and convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, and appeared on far-right podcasts and networks, The National reported. At a protest earlier this year organised by Keen’s group, Standing For Women, a speaker quoted Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf when arguing that trans women aren’t women".
Doesn't sound like the polar opposite of a nazi, indo. Sounds a fair bit like a nazi actually, If we're splitting hairs.
Not sure what you mean by trifecta indo , never heard of this bloke so not really interested in watching if he’s from the same ilk as Avi . I did find this amusing though.
WATCH the now infamous train-wreck anti-trans rally in Hobart, Australia. Speaker 'Posie Parker' was left seething after just ten supporters turned up, lashing out abuse at crowds of Aussie locals as she unravelled before them. #auspol pic.twitter.com/saK07vKZnz
— PRGuy (@PRGuy17) March 21, 2023
frog wrote:Albo is totally trapped.
In the early days of discussions, Scommo might have been able to steer a different path and, behind closed doors and to consider the issues Gareth and Keating have raised.
Once you stand next to the POTUS in a joint announcement as he has done, pulling out is pretty much a career ending move preceded by a suitable period of torture:
- media ridicule nationally and in the US,
- opposition wedging,
- US icy cold shoulders at every turn
- phone calls to all US people of note not returned
- cancelled invites to major events,
- being placed on the loser table at US hosted events sitting outside the toilets with nobodies
- visuals of backs turned to little Albo as he tries to talk to other leaders at events
- embarrassing leaks
etcThere are so many ways they can flail him alive without even pulling the Kerr option if they really want to if he embarrassed them or upset long laid plans.
Don’t agree with the little Johnny lapdog template on this one. Australia has real skin in the game here. It’s not Iraq. Secondly it’s very much in the US interest to ensure this alliance and sub deal goes ahead without disruption or disagreement to present as a united front. Any deviation from that pathway will be seen as disunity and weakness and thus unfavourable to any sort of resistance against the so called china threat. In short, the US needs us too even if the scales aren’t equal. Anyway I just read this stuff in MSM so what would I know. Just here for some counterweight.
@info says “ Fark i was way to generous with including Guy in that list, not involved in the conversation but comes in just spewing pointless brain dead nonsense abuse”
Now don’t get all upset with me and accusing me of not adding anything to the conversation when for years you have been baiting the SN forums with videos of that discredited “grifter” as @VL regularly described him for precisely the same reaction as above so why bother, no one here is buying his shit nor your spin on it
Supafreak wrote:Not sure what you mean by trifecta indo , never heard of this bloke so not really interested in watching if he’s from the same ilk as Avi . I did find this amusing though. https://twitter.com/prguy17/status/1638116205918834688?s=46&t=5RczxwAfzX...
He's a person of colour and a conservative, he should be on your hit list if he is not put him on it, because he doesn't fit into the way a person of colour should think for you, do a google search im sure Crikey or some other far left trashy rag have tried to discredit him and paint him as something he isnt, maybe claiming he has had some photo taken with some Nazi (always a favourite) or done some white supremest hand signal in a photo or something silly, or hell just being given time by independent conservative media is enough to be called far right these days.
Or maybe do a search on twitter (that i thought was suppose to die last December?), im sure you can find some crazy lefty who is obsessed with dissing him, so you can repost here.
Im sure you know him anyway, he was the guy that actually live streamed lockdown protest, including that one at the shrine and unions etc, basically he provides an unedited complete picture of events, often exposing main stream media misinformation that would rather paint a crowd or group in another light that gets cheap clicks.
BTW. If you did watch at least the first few minutes you would know his main point was how the media have ignored what the rally was about which was biological women having the right to safe spaces, that sure isnt a far right thing, it's a right all women especially young girls should have and should be something the left should also be ensuring (feminist traditionally left leaning), the problem is everyone has become completely gutless and fear being called transphobic or anti trans or bigots or whatever other garbage.
If you asked everyday women young and old about the issue id be very surprised if many felt comfortable sharing safe spaces with biological men indentifing as women
The media labelling these women and their rally as anti trans is a disgrace, just because they are against sharing safe spaces with or dont accept biological men as women, doesn't mean they are anti trans or hate trans people or whatever, im sure most have no issues with them or if encounter them in their life would treat them like anyone else and with respect, all they want is the right to women's safe spaces for biological women, its really not too much to ask for.
Your ranting and sounding unhinged indo , might be time for another break , catch a few waves maybe , goodluck .
@info simultaneously posting comments supporting women’s safe spaces AND convicted wife bashing grifter (again referencing @VL) man you can’t make shit like this up!
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/farright-political-player...
Supafreak wrote:Not sure what you mean by trifecta indo , never heard of this bloke so not really interested in watching if he’s from the same ilk as Avi . I did find this amusing though. https://twitter.com/prguy17/status/1638116205918834688?s=46&t=5RczxwAfzX...
As a pro rata of the Tasmanian population that's not a bad turnout!!!
Indo wrote “ BTW. Avi's history around women as far as im aware is one incident, a bad split second decision in a argument, im sure if he could go back he would never have thrown that chopping board, he could have easily denied the incident, but he manned up and admitted his mistake. “ I really can’t understand why you follow this POS indo but each to their own . Not sure if it was just a one time incident . https://www.thejc.com/news/world/avi-yemini-jewish-spokesperson-for-tomm...
Indo maybe it's time for a survey asking everyday women, young and old, of any major space safety issues they have had with:
a) Biological men identifying as a women
b) Biological men identifying as a man
I find it interesting that the debate about genders often falls onto toilets which we have good solutions for. Basically, an individual all-gender toilet so you don't need to share it with anyone. There are hundreds of these around the country already so what's the problem? We just need to gradually upgrade old facilities which needs to be done anyway at some point.
I find it bizarre that the debate about genders often falls onto toilets which we have good solutions for. Basically, an individual all-gender toilet so you don't need to share it with anyone. There are hundreds of these around the country already so what's the problem? We just need to gradually upgrade old facilities which needs to be done anyway at some point.
Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
More questions....???
Geez Morrison was a disaster for Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/22/labor-was-presente...
flollo wrote:Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
Yep. Upgrade bathrooms ASAP then these discussions do not need to happen.
burleigh wrote:flollo wrote:Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
Yep. Upgrade bathrooms ASAP then these discussions do not need to happen.
Why is everything dumbed down into a binary position? Individual toilets are way better anyway and it's widely done, even at the beaches. You can upgrade the toilets and have a discussion. You can respect tradition, religion, and others' right to self-identify. Why is it always option A vs option B?
garyg1412 wrote:Indo maybe it's time for a survey asking everyday women, young and old, of any major space safety issues they have had with:
a) Biological men identifying as a women
b) Biological men identifying as a man
When they say women's safe spaces, they aren't just talking about the need for a safe space for physical safety it also covers other aspects, like the women's right to just not feel vulnerable, uncomfortable, intimated etc or even for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower.
In the past it has been generally unacceptable for the opposite sex no matter how they identify to use a women's safe space, so its never become an issue, however things are changing because many would really like everyone to believe there is no difference between biology and identifying and to even challenge this can see you labeled negatively. (which shuts most people up, which is the whole aim)
I dont think the issue of biological women wanting to use mens spaces is such an issue for a number of reasons, and in reality a biological women identifying as male would generally feel uncomfortable and possibly unsafe using a mens only space.
It's not at all the same when flipped around.
BTW. Ive listen too these TERFS and to that more radical* one from the UK as she was on the Triggernomentry podcast, and while the main issue for everyday women is things like bathrooms and changing rooms, it does spill over into areas like prison system and then of course gores into the sports area too.
* Ive listened to a few and she is peak radical, she makes some good points but there is aspects where i think she is also wrong and goes over the top.
flollo wrote:Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
Its not a conservative issue, it's a women's rights issue the people who attended this rally(Let women speak rally) came from all political backgrounds with most being feminist or TERFS (generally radical feminist that dont accept trans women as real women)
And the rally had nothing to do with those Nazi clowns, they turned up for some strange reason and weren't even in the area where the speakers were, it really makes no sense what they were doing there?
Maybe in some instances shared toilets might make sense but its unrealistic in many places and often has other issues particularly for women, also its not just about toilets it covers many areas like change rooms.
In most places there is a third option for special needs, but of course those wanting to push boundaries are unlikely to take that option.
BTW. Apparently the rally was organized by "Angela Jones, a left-wing, pro-gay rights Jewish woman"
https://www.facebook.com/MoiraDeemingMP
@indo I am not talking about the rally but more broadly. And broadly, you see a lot of debate falling down onto toilets. Toilets are obviously just part of the picture and the overall discussion but it's the one that can be easily solved (and is implemented pretty much everywhere anyway).
Rally's are just a terrible choice of environment to be the forum for so many issues.
frog wrote:Rally's are just a terrible choice of environment to be the forum for so many issues.
Reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg line: "I'm against protesting but don't know how to show it".
What I also find strange is that all these different groups have a need to prove their point in Melbourne? Why is that?
10 minute podcast with Angie Jones speaking about the rally. https://www.2hd.com.au/2023/03/21/angie-jones-the-principal-organiser-of...
some very basic, entry level common sense and wisdom by someone who actually seems to have read some history, in a time dominated by completely insane, unhinged fanatical US war mongering and military adventurism aimed at provoking China and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy:
Speculation that China might invade Taiwan to distract from mounting domestic challenges - or because Chinese leaders imagine that their window of opportunity to seize the island is closing - is not just wrong, but dangerous. Here's why: https://t.co/mawriqRj1e THREAD
— Jessica Chen Weiss (@jessicacweiss) March 21, 2023
"Beijing, Washington, and Taipei must avoid creating the very do-or-die scenario that they fear." 🇺🇸🇨🇳🇹🇼
— Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) (@AsiaPolicy) March 21, 2023
New in @ForeignAffairs, @jessicacweiss of ASPI's #CenterforChinaAnalysis provides her take on the dynamics between the U.S., China and Taiwan: https://t.co/av2pJgmtiJ
JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University and a Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.
Jessica Chen Weiss wrote:In the West and parts of Asia, concern is mounting that China might invade Taiwan to distract from mounting domestic challenges or because Chinese leaders imagine that their window of opportunity to seize the island is closing. Facing an economic slowdown and rising unemployment, some analysts argue, Beijing might be tempted to launch a military offensive to rally popular support. In January 2023, for instance, Taiwan’s foreign minister, Joseph Wu, speculated that Chinese President Xi Jinping might create an external crisis “to divert domestic attention or to show to the Chinese that he has accomplished something.”
Other analysts warn of an impending war because China’s rise is slowing. In their view, Beijing might try to seize the opportunity to use force against Taiwan while it has the advantage. Admiral Mike Gilday, chief of U.S. naval operations, suggested in October 2022 that China could try to take Taiwan as early as 2022 or 2023. Other U.S. officials, including Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and William Burns, the director of the CIA, have cautioned that Xi has not yet decided to invade Taiwan. But there is growing concern among some Western security analysts and policymakers that once the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) believes it has the military capability to invade Taiwan and hold the United States at bay, Xi will order an invasion.
Fears that China will soon invade Taiwan are overblown. There is little evidence that Chinese leaders see a closing window for action. Such fears appear to be driven more by Washington’s assessments of its own military vulnerabilities than by Beijing’s risk-reward calculus. Historically, Chinese leaders have not started wars to divert attention from domestic challenges, and they continue to favor using measures short of conflict to achieve their objectives. If anything, problems at home have moderated Chinese foreign policy, and Chinese popular opinion has tended to reward government bluster and displays of resolve that do not lead to open conflict.
If Western policymakers exaggerate the risk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, they might inadvertently create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of worrying that Beijing will gin up a foreign crisis to bolster its standing at home or assuming that Beijing feels pressured to invade in the near term, the United States should focus on arresting—or at least decelerating—the action-reaction spiral that has steadily ratcheted up tensions and made a crisis more likely. That does not mean halting efforts to bolster Taiwan’s resilience to Chinese coercion or to diversify the United States’ defense posture in the region. But it does mean avoiding needless confrontation and identifying reciprocal steps that Washington and Beijing could take to lower the temperature.
The hard but crucial task for U.S. policymakers is to thread the needle between deterrence and provocation. Symbolic displays of resolve, unconditional commitments to defend Taiwan, and pledges of a surge in U.S. military power in the region could stray too far toward the latter, inadvertently provoking the very conflict U.S. policymakers seek to deter.
WAG THE DOG?
Although the logic of diversionary aggression has an intuitive appeal, there is little reason to think that domestic challenges will tempt China’s leadership to launch a war abroad. In a 2008 review of cross-national studies of international conflict, the scholars Matthew Baum and Philip Potter found little consistent evidence of world leaders starting military hostilities to whip up domestic support. Moreover, authoritarian leaders may be less likely than democratic ones to initiate crises in the wake of domestic unrest because they have greater latitude to repress their people, the political scientist Chris Gelpi has found. And rather than embark on risky military adventures, leaders facing domestic challenges often choose other means to quell discontent, including working with other states to address threats from within—for instance, by settling border disputes to calm unrest on their frontiers—or resorting to repression.China’s response to once-in-a-generation protests against its draconian COVID-19 restrictions late last year is a case in point. After demonstrators took to the streets in dozens of cities carrying sheets of blank paper—symbols of resistance in the face of censorship—the Chinese government did not seek to deflect attention from domestic discontent with aggressive foreign policy measures. Instead, it eased its COVID-19 restrictions, detained and interrogated protesters, and continued its post-pandemic efforts to reassure foreign investors.
Chinese leaders have given few signs that domestic insecurity might prompt them to lash out against Taiwan. On the contrary, Xi and the Chinese Communist Party leadership have sought to project an image of confidence and patience in the face of growing international risks and challenges. Despite pessimism in China about trends in public opinion that show Taiwan pulling away from the mainland politically and culturally, Xi told the CCP’s 20th Party Congress in October 2022 that “the wheels of history are rolling on toward China’s reunification.”
Historically, Chinese leaders have tended to temper their foreign policy during times of domestic turmoil. Sometimes, they have engaged in harsh rhetoric and saber rattling, but they have only rarely launched military operations in such periods. Even Chairman Mao Zedong, who ordered the shelling of offshore islands in 1958, sought to mobilize the Chinese population while avoiding an outright war over Taiwan, warning that China must only fight battles it is sure of winning.
According to the political scientist M. Taylor Fravel, China has compromised in 15 of the 17 territorial disputes it has settled with its neighbors since 1949—most of them during periods of regime insecurity arising from domestic political challenges, including unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, and renewed unrest in Xinjiang in the early 1990s. In an analysis of Beijing’s behavior in militarized interstate disputes between 1949 and 1992, moreover, the political scientist Alastair Johnston found “no relationship between domestic unrest and China’s use of force externally.” If anything, the frequency of China’s involvement in militarized interstate disputes declined when domestic unrest increased. On the whole, in other words, Chinese leaders have done the opposite of what many analysts are warning: they have sought to reduce external tensions in order to tackle domestic challenges from a position of greater strength while attempting to deter foreign efforts to exploit internal tensions.
Beijing’s behavior in the East and South China Seas has followed this pattern. During two flare-ups with Tokyo in the 1990s over the island chain known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China, for instance, Chinese leaders quashed expressions of popular antipathy toward Japan with the aim of preserving economic ties with Tokyo, according to the international relations scholars Phillip Saunders and Erica Downs. And the political scientist Andrew Chubb has shown that between 1970 and 2015, Chinese leaders tended to be less aggressive at sea during periods of internal strife. When Beijing did act assertively in these maritime territorial disputes, it did so mainly to thwart perceived challenges with new capabilities, not to distract from heightened domestic insecurity.
BARK NOT BITE
Claims that Beijing is looking for opportunities to lash out for domestic political purposes aren’t just wrong. They are dangerous because they imply that U.S. actions have no bearing on China’s calculus on Taiwan and that the only way to deter Beijing from diversionary aggression is to deny it the ability to prevail in such an endeavor.Domestic considerations and the military balance of power are not the only factors Xi will weigh when deciding whether to attack Taiwan. Even if he prefers to avoid a near-term conflict and believes that China’s military prospects will improve over time, he might still order a military operation if he and other Chinese leaders perceive a sharp increase in the risk that Taiwan could be lost. As Fravel has shown, China has often used military force to counter perceived challenges to its sovereignty claims in territorial and maritime disputes.
Such challenges, including U.S. actions that endorse Taiwan as an independent state or suggest that Washington might be on the cusp of restoring a formal alliance with the island, might trigger such a reaction from China. Even so, Beijing has less risky ways to respond to perceived provocations, including rhetoric and actions that could burnish its nationalist credentials without escalating to military conflict. As I have previously argued in Foreign Affairs, China’s leaders frequently engage in rhetorical bluster to appease domestic audiences and minimize the popular costs of not using military force. They may also choose from a variety of escalatory measures short of war to signal resolve and impose costs on Taiwan, including military, economic, and diplomatic efforts to squeeze the island and deter it from pulling away from the mainland. Behavior of this sort should not be mistaken for preparations for war.
KEEP CALM
In any society, there are people who go looking for a fight. But among the ranks of China’s top leaders, those people still appear to be less influential than those who recognize that it is better to win without fighting. Although Xi warned in 2021 that China would take “decisive measures” if provoked by “forces for Taiwan independence,” the CCP reiterated in 2022 that “peaceful reunification” remains its “first choice.” Even the hawkish Qiao Liang, a retired major general in the Chinese air force, has cautioned against the tide of nationalist agitation for action against Taiwan. “China’s ultimate goal is not the reunification of Taiwan, but to achieve the dream of national rejuvenation—so that all 1.4 billion Chinese can have a good life,” Qiao said in a May 2020 interview. He went on to warn that taking Taiwan by force would be “too costly” and should not be Beijing’s top priority.At present, Chinese leaders are still pressing the PLA to prepare for a possible war over Taiwan, which indicates that they are uncertain about their ability to win. So long as these doubts linger, the use of force to take the island will remain an option of last resort. These leaders cannot count on a swift victory to bolster their domestic popularity, and there is no evidence that they are preparing for an imminent invasion. As John Culver, a former U.S. intelligence analyst focused on East Asia, has noted, preparing to seize Taiwan would be an enormous, highly visible effort. In the months before an invasion, such preparations would be impossible to keep secret.
For now, the best way to prevent a showdown is to recognize that mutual efforts to show resolve and threaten punishment are not enough to keep the peace. China, Taiwan, and the United States must resist analysis that could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and make sure that alternatives to conflict remain viable.
To that end, Washington should assure Beijing that it is not bent on promoting Taiwan’s permanent separation or formal independence from China. U.S. officials and representatives should not refer to Taiwan as a country, ally, or strategic asset, or attempt to sow discord or encourage regime change in China, which would provoke rather than deter Beijing. Washington should help bolster Taiwan’s defenses, but it should do so without signaling dramatic changes in U.S. military support, which risk inadvertently creating the impression that Beijing has a limited window to invade. Beijing, Washington, and Taipei must avoid creating the very do-or-die scenario that they fear.
"for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower."
Indo that is a really simplistic example. Honestly, how many time do you reckon that is going to happen?? Compared to the issues we have with say 12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle, if you want to put it so crudely, then maybe we're protesting against the wrong things that affect women's rights hey??
garyg1412 wrote:"for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower."
Indo that is a really simplistic example. Honestly, how many time do you reckon that is going to happen?? Compared to the issues we have with say 12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle, if you want to put it so crudely, then maybe we're protesting against the wrong things that affect women's rights hey??
It was just an example, nobody can say how often it could happen, in some places it might never happen in other places it could happen daily for instance if communal showers and there are regular trans users.
If a "12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle" id expect the parents could report the man for sexual abuse of a minor and the law could even be involved, at a minimum im sure he would be given a warning or banned from the facility if a pool etc.
All kinds of similar sexual abuse issues are talked about and dealt with all the time (not suggesting this is sexual abuse but your example is), this women's safe space, trans free issue is a little different its a fairly new and evolving one and is based on a difference of opinion of ideology "what is a women"
And the whole topic covers many different aspects as we have even seen recently with the WSL making an announcement on who can compete in womens events.
Anyway I think the women have a right to not only be heard, but not to be demonised or put in the box along with Nazi's because some crazy Nazi's crash their event.
From my personal political perspective i think it really sucks how media have reacted and Victorian LNP because this LNP women member Moira Deeming may loose her position when she has done nothing at all wrong, and even if she doesn't she has had her name dragged through the mud, which sucks because i want to see more conservative women like her not less.
@Indo
a "12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle" id expect the parents could report the man for sexual abuse of a minor and the law could even be involved, at a minimum im sure he would be given a warning or banned from the facility if a pool etc.""
Reckon a warning would not be sufficient. Sexual assault of a minor should be a jail sentence offence.
Don't see what this has got to do with this debate however. Anyway I'm staying clear of this one... Live n let live
Good conservative Christians...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/22/videos-urged-coun...
andy-mac wrote:Good conservative Christians...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/22/videos-urged-coun...
No need for any of it. From both sides
Everyone - NUDE UP!
some very basic, entry level common sense and wisdom by someone who actually seems to have read some history, in a time dominated by completely insane, unhinged fanatical US war mongering and military adventurism aimed at provoking China and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy:https://twitter.com/jessicacweiss/status/1638226985238274067
https://twitter.com/AsiaPolicy/status/1638284596126306304JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University and a Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.
Mehh more hyperbole preceded by a fairly sensible article that concludes with the obvious.
Anyways how about that Hong Kong.
some very basic, entry level common sense and wisdom by someone who actually seems to have read some history, in a time dominated by completely insane, unhinged fanatical US war mongering and military adventurism aimed at provoking China and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy:https://twitter.com/jessicacweiss/status/1638226985238274067
https://twitter.com/AsiaPolicy/status/1638284596126306304JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University and a Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.
Mehh more hyperbole preceded by a fairly sensible article that concludes with the obvious.
Anyways how about that Hong Kong.
“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.