West should be prepared to use force against China, says Kevin Rudd Options

[MiddleKingdom1]

The irony is that over the same period of time, said leader repeatedly raised questions over the necessity of the expanding Chinese millitary. On the one hand they tell you it is completely unnecessary to waste money on defence whereas behind the scenes they are preparing to attack you.

China's military budget rises in proportion to the expansion of her GDP, which is natural for any power. China's military budget rises fast because China's economy is rising fast. Military spending has been the lowest priority for China, it's all about accumulation and growth.

Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.

In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.

China is becoming a global economic power. Besides nuclear weapons it has almost no means of global power projection. Its blue water navy wouldn't even be able to stand up to the UK or France let alone the US. Its ability to project power in its immediate vicinity is supreme however Western powers will not start a land war(if any at all). Lets just say for arguments sake China decided to fight Australia over Kangaroos rights or some bs. In a non nuclear war it would be over in a week tops. The EU and US would absolutely crush the Chinese fleet and subdue most of its air force once it exits Chinese airspace. That along with cruise missile strikes from subs and various surface vessels on select military installations would take China out of the game very quickly. Not to say the Chinese wouldnt put up a good fight because they would but against the technological superiority of the Western navies and air forces it really has no chance of victory. If it was a land war it would be a different ball game, this wouldnt be. The west shouldn't 'be prepared to use force' it already is. The west should leave China alone, why fight when you can trade and both profit.

Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.





This post has been edited by MiddleKingdom1: Dec 9 2010, 08:28 PM

[LiquidRoosevelt]

China's military budget rises in proportion to the expansion of her GDP, which is natural for any power. China's military budget rises fast because China's economy is rising fast. Military spending has been the lowest priority for China, it's all about accumulation and growth.

Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.

In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.



Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.

It has a world class land army. Blue water navies are much different. China will struggle to even compete with the technological prowess of a European power at sea by 2020 let alone the US. Also by 2020 the US will have 20x the stealth fighters(5th gen or possibly even an advance to the 6th) by the time China has a truly capable stealth fighter initiative. Its hard to write off 11 Supercarriers(with a brand new class being built now). China will be getting up there however and I hope the US helps them.

[MiddleKingdom1]

China will have a 5th gen F-22 equivalent up by 2017 according to the Pentagon.

China should have 5 carriers by 2025. (The year China is projected to eclipse US GDP)

Don't things change fast???

When I was 11 years old (10 years ago in 2000), China's GDP was (1/4) the size of Japan's GDP.

Fast forward, I'm 21 years old (2000-2010), China's GDP has eclipsed Japan's economy. +400% growth in 10 years.

+10% growth in China is equal to +50% growth in India's economy.


This post has been edited by MiddleKingdom1: Dec 9 2010, 10:42 PM

[LiquidRoosevelt]

China will have a 5th gen F-22 equivalent up by 2017 according to the Pentagon.

China should have 5 carriers by 2025. (The year China is projected to eclipse US GDP)

Don't things change fast???

When I was 11 years old (10 years ago in 2000), China's GDP was (1/4) the size of Japan's GDP.

Fast forward, I'm 21 years old (2000-2010), China's GDP has eclipsed Japan's economy. +400% growth in 10 years.

+10% growth in China is equal to +50% growth in India's economy.

Heck yes they do! Im excited to see a Chinese world power. I love the Chinese culture. The 5th gen fighter will come out of production in 2018 and be fully operational(as in out of testing and have an actual air wing) by 2020. I doubt China will have 5 carriers by 2025. Id say more like 3 or 4 with more in production. The US is building a new class of supercarrier as well. Id love to see US China joint military cooperation especially with a revamped Chinese navy. It would be freaking awesome.

[qwerty2010]

And a Merry Christmas to everyone!


MUST WATCH THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8jw-ifqwkM...feature=related

[qwerty2010]

The PLOT THICKENS....apparently, Rudd was axed by the Americans and Gillard was groomed as his replacement. So, was Rudd really pro or anti-China???

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22350

The latest batch of the several hundred leaked US diplomatic cables concerning Australia, provided by WikiLeaks to the Fairfax company’s Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age, provide further extraordinary evidence of Washington’s direct involvement in the anti-democratic coup against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last June.

Key coup plotters in the Labor Party and trade unions—including senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney, and Australian Workers Union chief Paul Howes—secretly provided the US embassy with regular updates on internal government discussions and divisions within the leadership. As early as June 2008, the American ambassador identified Julia Gillard as the “front-runner” to replace Rudd. In October 2009, i.e., eight months before Gillard was installed in unprecedented circumstances, Mark Arbib informed American officials of emerging leadership tensions. The Australian people, on the other hand, were kept entirely in the dark about any differences between the prime minister and his colleagues until after Rudd was ousted.

Gillard was described, some two years before the coup, by US diplomatic officials as the “rising star” within the Labor government. They made various enquiries into Gillard’s foreign policy sympathies, receiving assurances from government sources that her origins in the party’s “left” faction had no policy significance whatsoever. Arbib told the embassy that Gillard was “one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP”; Victorian senator David Feeney added that “there is no longer any intellectual integrity in the factions” and that “there is no major policy issue on which he, a Right factional leader, differs from Gillard”. When embassy officials checked on Gillard with Paul Howes, Australian Workers Union boss and subsequent anti-Rudd coup plotter, observing that “ALP politicians from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader,” he responded immediately: “but she votes with the Right’.”

The Sydney Morning Herald and Age have published parts of the latest material in excerpted form, ahead of their full public release expected in coming weeks. They focus today on Mark Arbib’s role as a “secret US source”. One of the key apparatchiks in Labor’s powerful New South Wales right-wing faction, Arbib reportedly made several requests to US officials that his identity as a “protected” informant be guarded.

The cables refer to Arbib as early as mid-2006, when he served as NSW Labor Party state secretary. After being elected to the senate in the November 2007 federal election, the factional leader deepened his relationship with Washington. A US embassy profile, authored in July 2009, noted that Arbib “understands the importance of supporting a vibrant relationship with the US” and that officials “have found him personable, confident and articulate”. The profile also recorded that he “has met with us repeatedly throughout his political rise”. Other cables referred to the senator as a “right-wing powerbroker and political rising star” and noted his influence within both Labor’s factions and “Rudd’s inner circle”.

The cables make clear that Arbib and the other identified MPs function not simply as mere US “sources”, as characterised in the media today—but rather as agents. Within the Labor and trade unions apparatuses, these party members serve as conduits for Washington’s agenda. The embassy communications reveal the extent to which the US government determines Australian foreign policy and dictates who will hold senior government posts, including the office of prime minister.

A precise chronology of Washington’s sordid, behind-the-scenes manipulation of Australian political affairs, between the Labor Party’s election victory in November 2007 and Rudd’s axing in June 2010, is likely to emerge once WikiLeaks releases the full cache of relevant cables.

Already, however, it is now beyond dispute that Washington began cultivating Gillard at the same time as embassy officials were issuing damning assessments of Rudd, above all over his stance on Beijing. In June 2008, the same month Gillard was named as the “front-runner” to succeed Rudd, the prime minister unveiled his Asia-Pacific Community project, attempting to mediate the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China. An American embassy cable lambasted this proposal as yet another Rudd initiative launched “without advance consultation”. (See: “WikiLeaks cables cast fresh light on coup against former Australian PM Rudd”)

[qwerty2010]

Looks like the US orchestrated a coup against Rudd for not committing Australian troops to Afghanistan and for taking a more neutral stance. So the recent Wikileaks with Rudd assuring Clinton about his stance against China must be judged in this light. This coincides with a series of "coups" in the countries around China, Roh in S Korea, Hatoyama in Japan, etc. Now, Rudd joins the "alumni":

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/wash-j15.shtml

What was Washington’s role in the coup against Australian prime minister Rudd?
By James Cogan
15 July 2010

As more information drips out, the role of Washington in the June 24 political coup against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd looms ever larger. It is increasingly apparent that the Obama administration had become concerned that Rudd was wavering in his support for the crisis-wracked US-led occupation of Afghanistan, and that one of the driving forces for his ousting may well have been US insistence that the Australian government—a key US ally—align itself unconditionally with Obama’s intensification of the criminal war.

This post has been edited by qwerty2010: Dec 10 2010, 06:29 AM

[KraterosHellas]

China's military budget rises in proportion to the expansion of her GDP, which is natural for any power. China's military budget rises fast because China's economy is rising fast. Military spending has been the lowest priority for China, it's all about accumulation and growth.

Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.

In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.



Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.

blue-water navy baby

[hupehdesi]

Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd said the West should be prepared to use force against China if it acted irresponsibly, a cable leaked by Wikileaks alleges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11925438

Why the fu-k China still has only 200 atomic bombs, it need immediately produce at least 10000 bombs, how fu-king arrogant are those white pigs.

And what the fu-k is this about Tibet, Aborigines in Australia live at least 10 years shorter than white people, this white pig should take care of them.


And what is wrong with the communists, China must arm it self to the teeth whit every available weapon of mass destruction, so what if it comes to nuclear war, we all be dead.

Imagine how would they scream if some Chinese official said that we need to invade Australia if China need resources

this makes my blood boil, China arm yourself for the total war, if it comes so we will all be dead , so what, but this white pigs must be touth a lesson.

This guy makes the 2 bushes look like geniuses,for aguy who supposedly knows chinese culture,he should know that the chinese govt would rather destroy theworld and itself before giving into outside forces anymore,how the f did this guy ever become prime minister.

[oGsInca]

History of Western imperialism in East Asia:

- Europeans use gunboats to submit Japan, Korea and China
- Europeans colonizes South East Asia
- Japan adopts Western technologies to defend itself
- Britain smuggles drug into China
- British forces take out Chinese forces
- European countries + Japan colonizes China
- Japan tries to purge Europeans out of Asia
- Japan massively invests in China
- U.S. fears a stronger and united East Asia lead by Japan
- U.S. supports China against the Japanese
- Japan loses the war
- U.S. recognizes Japan as a major power like German and gives it more power
- U.S. changes side and allies with Japan
- U.S. develops South Korea because of its critical importance to Japan and its control over Asia.
- U.S. contains China
- U.S. denies Vietnam's right to independence as promised for fighting the Japanese
- U.S. goes to war against Vietnam after Vietnam ousts the French from power
- U.S. forces retreat

This post has been edited by oGsInca: Dec 10 2010, 09:09 PM

[qwerty2010]

This guy makes the 2 bushes look like geniuses,for aguy who supposedly knows chinese culture,he should know that the chinese govt would rather destroy theworld and itself before giving into outside forces anymore,how the f did this guy ever become prime minister.

I think he said that to convince Clinton and the US that he can be trusted to be anti-China, perhaps he isn't, but no politician of any country, except Russia, SCO, etc. can survive if they don't talk tough against China.

Nonetheless, the US orchestrated a coup against Rudd, as the Wikileaks also revealed. So Rudd isn't really fully trusted by the US to be against China.

So is Rudd for or against China, or is he walking a tightrope to stay neutral? We don't know, only perhaps those in the highest levels in China know. What we do know is that the US ruling elite wants to stop China from becoming strong and is organizing an Asian NATO.

Really intriguing.

[MiddleKingdom1]

King of British Empire, King Edward VII responded to Australian PM's arrogance as there is "not many people in Australia" and their opinion did not matter.

China's smallest province has twice more people than Australia's population.

This post has been edited by MiddleKingdom1: Dec 11 2010, 08:50 PM

[UnZipped]

any opinion of puppet states like australia does not matter.

[orange peel]

Heck yes they do! Im excited to see a Chinese world power. I love the Chinese culture. The 5th gen fighter will come out of production in 2018 and be fully operational(as in out of testing and have an actual air wing) by 2020. I doubt China will have 5 carriers by 2025. Id say more like 3 or 4 with more in production. The US is building a new class of supercarrier as well. Id love to see US China joint military cooperation especially with a revamped Chinese navy. It would be freaking awesome.

hmmm... c&c red alert generals 2030 ed. can't wait

[orange peel]

Looks like the US orchestrated a coup against Rudd for not committing Australian troops to Afghanistan and for taking a more neutral stance. So the recent Wikileaks with Rudd assuring Clinton about his stance against China must be judged in this light. This coincides with a series of "coups" in the countries around China, Roh in S Korea, Hatoyama in Japan, etc. Now, Rudd joins the "alumni":

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/wash-j15.shtml

What was Washington’s role in the coup against Australian prime minister Rudd?
By James Cogan
15 July 2010

As more information drips out, the role of Washington in the June 24 political coup against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd looms ever larger. It is increasingly apparent that the Obama administration had become concerned that Rudd was wavering in his support for the crisis-wracked US-led occupation of Afghanistan, and that one of the driving forces for his ousting may well have been US insistence that the Australian government—a key US ally—align itself unconditionally with Obama’s intensification of the criminal war.

prolongation of the war in Afghanistan into attrition can only be good for china, if only the Iraq war was as robust.

This post has been edited by orange peel: Dec 11 2010, 10:43 PM

[swingdoctor]

The PLOT THICKENS....apparently, Rudd was axed by the Americans and Gillard was groomed as his replacement. So, was Rudd really pro or anti-China???

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22350

How on earth do you go from America identifying Julia Gillard as the next leader to Rudd was axed by the Americans. The article makes conclusions without any evidence. It has concluded the series of events by looking at the result, without any proof. It couldn't be that Rudd never had any factional support and that the only reason he was PM was becasue he was popular among the voters? Towards the end of his tenure, his popularity was down to nearly 50% and sliding compared to a high of 70%+, this couldn't possibly be the reason he was outed could it. Just to let you know James Coglan is a politican and the article you obtained is from a political website, do you think you can trust every thing that they write.

I can guarentee you the US would be more interested in the succession plan in China and that the US(and most countries) will have dossiers on potential leaders of all the major countries of the world. It is a far step to take to suggest simply by identifying future leaders that they were responsible for putting them there.

This post has been edited by swingdoctor: Dec 12 2010, 05:45 PM

[MiddleKingdom1]

Australia's leadership advocating for war with China?

No wonder they need US.... without US, China would PWN Australia with her army.

[qwerty2010]

swingdoctor, I have no idea what your background is, but this thread is about Kevin Rudd and Australia-US-China relations. All of us contribute what information we know, and I highlighted to everyone that the first Wikileaks that is the title of this thread may NOT be what it seems. Further Wikileaks indicate that Kevin Rudd was being sidelined privately by US and pro-US Australian Labour Party members. I provided links to extremely detailed and lengthy articles that traced the entire trajectory of recent political intrigues in Australia, especially US suspicions that Rudd is NOT on board with US war plans and China containment, as well as the contents of those leaks. Why don't YOU provide evidence that contradict what these facts indicated, eg. more Wikileaks details? Until you do, you're just talking out of your rear.



Back to the thread, the chronicle of events is as follows. The "tough talk on China to Clinton" by Rudd could just be a desperate attempt to convince the Americans not to depose him. In the end, I'd be curious about China's reaction to Australia. Even if it results in worse relations, Australia will pin this down on Rudd.

The events preceding the coup strongly suggest that tensions over Afghanistan had so poisoned relations between the Obama administration and Rudd that, amidst a campaign by major corporate concerns to destabilise the Labor government, Washington secured certain guarantees from Gillard and then intervened to seal his fate.

Last December, Rudd ruled out the dispatch of any further Australian troops to Afghanistan when the White House announced its “surge” of 30,000 additional US troops and called for its allies to commit more forces. Rudd insisted that an increase in the Australian contingent from 1,100 to 1,550 personnel in May 2009 was sufficient to demonstrate his government’s commitment to the war and the US-Australia military alliance.

Rudd also insisted that the primary role of the Australian forces should remain the training of a brigade of Afghan government troops in the southern province of Uruzgan. They would not participate in the offensives into Helmand and Kandahar provinces that US commanders were planning as part of the surge. He also pointedly refused to allow Australian forces to take over operational command of Uruzgan when a Dutch contingent was slated to withdraw from the province in August. As a result, US troops will have to be deployed into the area, diverting them from operations elsewhere.

Publicly, the Obama administration refrained from criticising the Australian position and praised Rudd as a reliable ally. In March, however, veteran journalist Rafael Epstein published a report in the Sydney Morning Herald that the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan at the time, General Stanley McChrystal, had had a “bitter exchange” with the chief of the Australian Defence Forces, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston.

According to Epstein’s sources, McChrystal told Houston in December 2009 that “the Rudd government’s refusal to allow Australian troops to take the fight to the Taliban was impairing the US-led war effort”. The US general allegedly warned that Rudd’s refusal to allow Australian troops to deploy outside of Uruzgan into the regions being targeted by Obama’s surge was doing “permanent damage” to “the US perception of Australia’s military commitment”.

Epstein also reported that the White House and the Pentagon intended to vent their anger and frustration during a visit to Australia in January by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The visit was cancelled, however, due to the Haiti earthquake.

Two planned visits to Australia by Obama himself were also cancelled, the first ostensibly due to the stalemate in passing his health legislation and the second due to the BP oil spill. Given Rudd’s ultimate fate, the cancelled visits take on a new significance.

Prior to the coup, Rudd and Faulkner had taken steps to appease US dissatisfaction with their Afghan policy. Australian special forces were made available for use in Kandahar province. The result, however, was some of the heaviest fighting yet seen, and a spike in the Australian death toll.

One third of all Australian casualties in Afghanistan since the October 2001 invasion, a total of 17 killed and 143 wounded, have occurred this year—a direct result of Obama’s surge. In June, more than 100 soldiers of the US-led occupation force were killed in the space of one month for the first time. The casualties suffered by Afghan resistance fighters and civilians have run into the many thousands.

The Australian losses coincided with a deepening crisis of the Rudd government. Popular dissatisfaction over a range of Labor policies, including the war, was being exploited and manipulated by the Murdoch media and major mining magnates. The mining corporations began financing a multi-million dollar advertising blitz, denouncing the proposed Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) as a threat to jobs and investment. Opinion polling showing a collapse in electoral support for Labor was trumpeted in the media as evidence that Rudd would be swept from office, and utilised to fan speculation about a leadership challenge by Gillard.

On Tuesday, June 22, however, it appeared that Rudd had survived. The entire Labor caucus met that morning for the last time before an eight-week winter break, with no challenge being made. The Labor politicians were reassured that, even with the decline in the opinion polls, the numbers still meant the government would be returned to power. At the same time, Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan were making moves to strike a deal with the mining companies in order to bury the RSPT controversy.

The next day, Faulkner announced a tentative timetable for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, with the clear aim of placating popular opposition to the mounting Australian deaths and to the war itself. An Essential Media Communications opinion poll in June showed 61 percent of respondents wanted the withdrawal of Australian troops, an increase of 11 percent compared with 15 months earlier.

“What it means is that at some point within that two to four year time frame we would see our training mission transition to an overwatch role,” Faulkner told a press conference. “And that would obviously mean at that time we would start to see a reduction of the number of Australian troops in Afghanistan.”

It is now known that Labor MP and former union boss Bill Shorten had approached Gillard two weeks earlier and guaranteed that he and other factional powerbrokers would ensure she had the numbers to defeat Rudd in a leadership ballot. Gillard had refused, however, and she did not mount a challenge during Tuesday’s caucus meeting.

The Australian media has attempted to ascribe the shift in Gillard’s position over the following 24 hours to her sense of “betrayal” over the revelation that Rudd’s aides had been approaching Labor parliamentarians to shore up his factional support in the caucus. The rapidly deepening crisis in Afghanistan and within the Obama administration itself—along with Gillard’s actions since the coup—makes US intervention a far more likely scenario.

Faulkner’s announcement on Afghanistan would doubtless have been greeted with fury in Washington, and could well have been the final straw in its relationship with Rudd. Some key operative could simply have informed Gillard and/or her backers that it was time to act, and that if she did so, it would be with US support.

Nine years since the invasion of Afghanistan, the longest war in US history, Obama’s surge has failed to stem the growth of the Taliban-led Afghan resistance, let alone hold out the prospect of victory over the insurgency. American and NATO casualties are soaring, the puppet government of Hamid Karzai is viewed as corrupt and illegitimate and its security forces are dysfunctional.

The US ruling elite, however, cannot and will not walk away from their criminal attempt to transform Afghanistan into an American puppet state. Such a policy would amount to surrendering control of the resources of Central Asia to geo-political rivals such as China and Russia. On the precisely the day that the coup went into operation against Rudd—Wednesday June 23—General Stanley McChrystal was sacked from his command of US and NATO forces and replaced with General David Petraeus. In the weeks since, Petraeus has signalled a major escalation in the violence against the Afghan people, with moves to lift restrictions on air strikes that may cause civilian casualties.

The Obama administration had a clear interest in reversing Australia’s withdrawal timeframe. Numerous US allies that have supplied troops are facing mounting popular opposition and are increasingly nervous about being embroiled in a war without end. With the Netherlands and Canada already preparing to withdraw, the Rudd government’s stance could have become the starting point for a wider abandonment of the US-led occupation. Did Washington wish to send a signal around the world that governments or leaders who waver on their commitment do so at their own peril?

While much still remains unknown, it is highly unlikely that Washington, the CIA and the US embassy in Canberra were not deeply involved in the anti-democratic conspiracy to depose Rudd—just as they were in the 1975 coup that brought down the Whitlam Labor government.

Rudd certainly appears to have concluded that the US had a hand in the coup. Sydney Morning Herald journalist Peter Hartcher reported from the US on Monday that Rudd had “irritated some senior US officials in the past fortnight in numerous calls to Washington”. One official told Hartcher: “Kevin has been whiny and mopey. There’s been too much ‘if only’ this and ‘if only’ that. He needs to just suck it up and get on with things.”

According to Hartcher, Obama telephoned Rudd following the coup, before he called Gillard. The president allegedly conveyed his “shock”, before pointedly suggesting Rudd may want to seek a career outside politics. Obama apparently let Rudd know that he would provide assistance for the former prime minister to obtain a lucrative international position—presumably similar to those enjoyed by the likes of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US President Bill Clinton. If he were to avail himself of the opportunity, Rudd, who is married to a multi-millionaire, could grow even richer. The price, of course, would be to keep quiet on the circumstances of the coup and “just suck it up”.

Obama allegedly concluded the phone call by making clear to Rudd that he “looked forward” to working with Gillard.

The attitude of the White House and the broader US political establishment to Gillard’s installation was spelt out on Tuesday by Kurt Campbell, Obama’s Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

In comments provided to the Sydney Morning Herald’s Hartcher, Campbell stated: “Not that we needed any reassurance, but nevertheless we are deeply appreciative of the continuity, of the statements of strong support [from Gillard] on the centrality of the US-Australia alliance, and all I can say is the President’s very much looking forward to working with the new prime minister…”

An Australian official in Washington told Hartcher that the US establishment was not concerned about Gillard or the manner in which she had risen to power, “because they know her and they know her views”.

At a speech in 2008 to the Australian American Leadership Dialogue Gillard had told the assembled audience: “Our alliance is bigger than any person, bigger than any party, bigger than any period in our history together.”

Among the issues that will be not be canvassed or discussed in the course of the forthcoming Australian election campaign is what role US imperialism played in refashioning the Australian government and the commitment of Gillard to intensify its support for the criminal US-led war in Afghanistan, and for US militarism around the world.

[qwerty2010]

prolongation of the war in Afghanistan into attrition can only be good for china, if only the Iraq war was as robust.

I don't think it is right to think in terms of dispensable lives, be they Afghanistan, Iraqi or American. I'd rather American and European citizens wake the hell up and stop their countries from inflicting further damage to the world and in the end, to themselves. I wonder how history will view this age of lies, false flag wars and massive deaths and destruction, while robber barons run free and the public's savings and investments evaporated, then saddled with debts. Unkindly, I would think. I don't think China can escape from this downward pull economically, but it could get a lot worse, esp. if the wars spread to Asia.

I think China has to work its wits to deal with this situation with Australia, and what it means with US trying to encircle it.

This post has been edited by qwerty2010: Dec 12 2010, 11:54 PM

[swingdoctor]

swingdoctor, I have no idea what your background is, but this thread is about Kevin Rudd and Australia-US-China relations. All of us contribute what information we know, and I highlighted to everyone that the first Wikileaks that is the title of this thread may NOT be what it seems. Further Wikileaks indicate that Kevin Rudd was being sidelined privately by US and pro-US Australian Labour Party members. I provided links to extremely detailed and lengthy articles that traced the entire trajectory of recent political intrigues in Australia, especially US suspicions that Rudd is NOT on board with US war plans and China containment, as well as the contents of those leaks. Why don't YOU provide evidence that contradict what these facts indicated, eg. more Wikileaks details? Until you do, you're just talking out of your rear.



Back to the thread, the chronicle of events is as follows. The "tough talk on China to Clinton" by Rudd could just be a desperate attempt to convince the Americans not to depose him. In the end, I'd be curious about China's reaction to Australia. Even if it results in worse relations, Australia will pin this down on Rudd.

Just to let you know, I'm Australian of Chinese heritage originally from Malaysia.

What I'm saying is that you can't take everything thats written on the web as gospel and you have to seperate fact from opinion. The 2 authors you refer to James Cogan and Patrick O'Connor, they both write for the Global Socialist website, so they are a political body with a political agenda, not the most trustworthy of authors. And although I don't like generalising, I find that alot of the Socialists believe in conspiracy theories. James Cogan even ran for parliament under the Socialist banner which he lost.

Now what is fact, from wikileaks the fact is that the Obama admistration was getting information from Labour Party members, it is also fact that they were not happy with Rudd. Another fact is that Rudd never had grassroots support in the Labour party and that his popularity as well as the public support for the Labour Party was diminishing, the primary vote for the Labour party just prior to Rudd's departure was as low as 35%, the lowest it had been during his tenure.

It is the authors opinion that the Americans were the ones who got rid of Rudd, but if you read their articles carefully, they make no specific references to wikileaks for evidence of this. They have taken 2 independent facts and linked them, even when there is no evidence to that effect. Tell me what did the Americans promise Gillard to encourage her to challange. 2 weeks before she challanged Gilliard already had the numbers to take the leadership but she initially refused. What possibly could the Americans have done to influence Australian politics? Did they promise us money, well at the moment we are richer then them. Military support? How is that going to benefit Gillard directly?

If there was any credible evidence from wikileaks to suggest that the Americans were influential in the dumping of Rudd, all the Australian news media would be all over it. It would make sensational news, no way would they leave it alone. The truth is that the conclusions came to by James Cogan and Patrick O'Connor, are almost certainly politically motivated. And again if you read their articles carefully they make no correlation to wikileaks when claiming this.