AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

West should be prepared to use force against China, says Kevin Rudd
bear11
post Dec 6 2010, 06:32 AM
Post #1


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 577
Joined: 2-July 10




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 post has been edited by bear11: Dec 6 2010, 06:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
qwerty2010
post Dec 12 2010, 11:24 PM
Post #2


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 26-April 10




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. icon_confused.gif



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.

QUOTE
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swingdoctor
post Dec 13 2010, 05:02 AM
Post #3


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,529
Joined: 16-February 06




QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 13 2010, 12:24 AM) *
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. icon_confused.gif



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
qwerty2010
post Dec 13 2010, 05:27 AM
Post #4


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 26-April 10




QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 13 2010, 06:02 AM) *
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.


Nope, READ again. They are giving a chronicle of events as reported by the Sydney Herald. They are not merely reporting their own opinions, but quoted Australian journalists like Epstein and Hartcher, and they co-related that to the Wikileaks and the timeline of the political events. Care to elaborate on the credibility of the Sydney Herald reports instead?

Why do you refuse to read through the articles before you dismiss the information as NOT credible? Is it because they are Coglan and O' Connor? Is it more credible if it's Hersh or Chomsky? You know what, I don't even know these writers, but I care about the information they highlighted and put together from other sources. Is it more credible if the writer is Colin Powell writing on Iraqi WMDs and the source is "Curveball", a CIA detainee??

There is a certain closed-mindedness about dismissing an article as NOT believable because you disagree with the sources. This is more akin to having a preconceived "gospel truth".

Me, I prefer to look at the basis for the writings, which references, do they check out, and if they are based on rock solid facts on verifiable public domain, I do not accept or deny information based on my bias. This is also how I arrive at conclusions or opinions. I still read the New York Times even though they published a lot of Iraqi WMD lies, but I'll be sure to consider if their reports are properly sourced.

Again, I don't see how either of those sources quoted aren't credible, simply because they are from an Canadian site and a Workers-Socialist site. No "Red Peril" fears from me, I do not see things in black and white, or as you prefer "the gospel truth". I judge based on the QUALITY of the information they provide, do they check out, do they not check out.

Why don't you contest the truth or elaborate on the falsehoods as reported by the Sydney Herald's Epstein and Hartner, did they misquote their sources, were they found out to have fabricated them, etc. (as the whole premise for these opinions is based on the reports therein) instead of condemning whatever comes out of sites you do not like?

I did not merely follow the authors' opinions, I followed the chronicle of events and the leaked statements and correspondences.

In the end, if you are Australian, you should be interested in all the behind the scenes machinations and what they imply and portend for Australia-China relations, like all of us here, be they politics or economics. And that's what this thread is for, did Kevin Rudd try to hurt China, was he hostile, is the current political leadership hostile, or is there more? Our opinions may change as different information surface, like mine about Julian Assange, I have come round to the thinking that he is genuine. The initial Wikileaks that headlined this thread was a bombshell, quite shocking for many of us, including me. We're looking for answers and it doesn't help to shut down discourse. Please feel free to post *your* own facts and findings that contribute to this thread to add to the discourse and to change our minds. We're all ears, or eyes, as it may be.

This post has been edited by qwerty2010: Dec 13 2010, 05:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swingdoctor
post Dec 13 2010, 09:01 AM
Post #5


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,529
Joined: 16-February 06




QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 13 2010, 06:27 AM) *
Nope, READ again. They are giving a chronicle of events as reported by the Sydney Herald. They are not merely reporting their own opinions, but quoted Australian journalists like Epstein and Hartcher, and they co-related that to the Wikileaks and the timeline of the political events. Care to elaborate on the credibility of the Sydney Herald reports instead?

Why do you refuse to read through the articles before you dismiss the information as NOT credible? Is it because they are Coglan and O' Connor? Is it more credible if it's Hersh or Chomsky? You know what, I don't even know these writers, but I care about the information they highlighted and put together from other sources. Is it more credible if the writer is Colin Powell writing on Iraqi WMDs and the source is "Curveball", a CIA detainee??

There is a certain closed-mindedness about dismissing an article as NOT believable because you disagree with the sources. This is more akin to having a preconceived "gospel truth".

Me, I prefer to look at the basis for the writings, which references, do they check out, and if they are based on rock solid facts on verifiable public domain, I do not accept or deny information based on my bias. This is also how I arrive at conclusions or opinions. I still read the New York Times even though they published a lot of Iraqi WMD lies, but I'll be sure to consider if their reports are properly sourced.

Again, I don't see how either of those sources quoted aren't credible, simply because they are from an Canadian site and a Workers-Socialist site. No "Red Peril" fears from me, I do not see things in black and white, or as you prefer "the gospel truth". I judge based on the QUALITY of the information they provide, do they check out, do they not check out.

Why don't you contest the truth or elaborate on the falsehoods as reported by the Sydney Herald's Epstein and Hartner, did they misquote their sources, were they found out to have fabricated them, etc. (as the whole premise for these opinions is based on the reports therein) instead of condemning whatever comes out of sites you do not like?

I did not merely follow the authors' opinions, I followed the chronicle of events and the leaked statements and correspondences.

In the end, if you are Australian, you should be interested in all the behind the scenes machinations and what they imply and portend for Australia-China relations, like all of us here, be they politics or economics. And that's what this thread is for, did Kevin Rudd try to hurt China, was he hostile, is the current political leadership hostile, or is there more? Our opinions may change as different information surface, like mine about Julian Assange, I have come round to the thinking that he is genuine. The initial Wikileaks that headlined this thread was a bombshell, quite shocking for many of us, including me. We're looking for answers and it doesn't help to shut down discourse. Please feel free to post *your* own facts and findings that contribute to this thread to add to the discourse and to change our minds. We're all ears, or eyes, as it may be.

Yes the information quoted from the SMH is accurate as in the Obama administration wasn't keen on Rudd as PM but the next conclusion saying that they had an influence in his downfall is the authors own conclusion. I have been reading The Age daily and I have not found any article suggesting that the Americans were responsible for Rudds downfall. I have done a search on the SMH and can't find any articles saying that either. Perhaps it should interest you reading this article from the ABC which criticises the SMH and The Age on their reporting of the wikileaks documents and summerises what both newspapers had been reporting

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12...tm?site=thedrum

And the Canadian website that you quoted Patrick O'Connors article came also directly from the same socialist website that James Cogan's article came from. Here it is http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/aust-d09.shtml. Check the dates, the article was first published in the Socialist website before the Canadian one. Also the Canadian website makes a reference to the article from the original socialist website.

Furthermore, yes as an Australian I am very interested in what happens "behind the scenes" in Australian politics and that is why I keep myself up to date on this and why I find it hard to believe the claims by Mrs Cogan and O'Connor, because I have never read it anywhere else including the newspapers they supposedly got their information from.

Finally the James Cogan's article has a publish date of 15 July 2010. This Wikileaks saga began in November 2010, so how can Mr Cogan be supposedly quoting from the SMH which was supposedly quoting from the Wikileaks report.

Now coming back to the main title of this thread, I'm personally embarassed that our Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister has been shown to be an idiot with an over inflated opinion of himself and his standing in the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
qwerty2010
post Dec 13 2010, 11:12 PM
Post #6


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,288
Joined: 26-April 10




QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 13 2010, 10:01 AM) *
Perhaps it should interest you reading this article from the ABC which criticises the SMH and The Age on their reporting of the wikileaks documents and summerises what both newspapers had been reporting

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12...tm?site=thedrum

Finally the James Cogan's article has a publish date of 15 July 2010. This Wikileaks saga began in November 2010, so how can Mr Cogan be supposedly quoting from the SMH which was supposedly quoting from the Wikileaks report.

Now coming back to the main title of this thread, I'm personally embarassed that our Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister has been shown to be an idiot with an over inflated opinion of himself and his standing in the world.



First, the website you referenced criticized the SMH and The Age reporters, without offering rebuttals to show that the reporters were wrong with their damning evidence. So the stance, co-ordination and correspondence between the Aussie power brokers, including Arbib, WEREN'T CONTESTED. To me, that isn't enough, as SMH and The Age, not to mention a lot of other journals, provided the facts, their critics none.

You criticized the sources Global Research, WSWS as "Socialist" and "not credible", yet the authors were using factual evidence and language that was used by prominent newspapers like The Age, SMH, Canberra Times, etc. (all on Wikipaedia), that Rudd's ousting was a "coup".

Second, you neglected to point out O' Connor's DECEMBER article, which referenced Wikileaks. I highlighted BOTH articles, one that points out the chronicle of events, the other co-relating them to what Wikileaks revealed:

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

QUOTE
The Fairfax press has already named former Labor national secretary and Rudd government cabinet member Bob McMullen and current backbencher Michael Danby as among those named in the WikiLeaks documents. Others likely to be named are starting to come out of the woodwork, in an effort to pre-empt the fallout. Health Minister Nicola Roxon today volunteered that she is likely to be identified, as she “meets with US diplomats from time to time”. Greens’ leader Bob Brown has foreshadowed similar revelations—though he was at pains to point out that he was always “very careful” in his responses, and spoke with diplomats “from all over the world, from Bangladesh to the US to New Zealand, Taiwan and Beijing”.

The cables will no doubt reveal similar relationships between Washington and senior Australian media personnel. Editors, journalists, and broadcasters are routinely nurtured through the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, and other such forums.

The excerpted cables also expose the close working relationship between the US government and Australia’s trade unions. The Fairfax press noted that “senior union leaders have privately briefed US officials about how they use their influence over the Labor Party to shape federal government policies”, and cited an August 2009 cable, which stated that the trade unions “continue to play a significant role in the formulation of national policies that can impact the United States”. Discussions between US embassy officials and senior figures in the Australian Workers Union and the National Union of Workers were reported, with one cable declaring that the leaders of the right-wing unions were “dynamic and forward thinking”.


Finally, taken in context, it is NOT surprising that Rudd, seeing the knives out for him from the Americans, would make such hawkish remarks to Clinton about China. It is however, highly suspicious that the Wikileaks that made headlines are Rudd's anti-China comments to Clinton.This isn't embarrassing, this is probably what ALL politicians are expected to do in front of the Americans, "for us or against us" (guess Bush is the most honest of the lot), otherwise their heads will roll. In Rudd's case, too little too late, I presume.

I don't know which is more hideous fallout in Australia, to be outed as an American mole for years, like Arbib, or clumsy anti-China bluster babbler, like Rudd. I'm surprised that Rudd's comments bothered you more than the co-opted political leadership in Australia by the US, to the extent where Aussie interests take a back seat to US policies, from war in Afghanistan to antagonism towards China.

In the end, it isn't if Rudd is for, neutral or against China, nobody knows, perhaps only Beijing, it is enough that the Americans found him NOT pro-US wars enough, that he gets axed.

I wonder why no US newspapers have reported this, shows how open, fair & balanced their news media are.

This post has been edited by qwerty2010: Dec 13 2010, 11:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- bear11   West should be prepared to use force against China   Dec 6 2010, 06:32 AM
- - boobu   that's just fuking classic! notice they l...   Dec 6 2010, 09:08 AM
- - Titanium   LOL no need to get your blood boiling, this is jus...   Dec 6 2010, 11:22 AM
|- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Titanium @ Dec 6 2010, 01:22 PM) L...   Dec 6 2010, 12:22 PM
- - African   China can overrun Australia while seated on her se...   Dec 6 2010, 11:27 AM
- - Lorax   time to make australia into the australian autonom...   Dec 6 2010, 01:19 PM
- - Lorax   the US will not help australia. the US is now in t...   Dec 6 2010, 01:21 PM
|- - African   QUOTE (Lorax @ Dec 6 2010, 02:21 PM) the ...   Dec 6 2010, 02:09 PM
- - ClassicalMusic   Castrate the F@CKING BASTARD   Dec 6 2010, 02:32 PM
|- - African   QUOTE (ClassicalMusic @ Dec 6 2010, 03:32...   Dec 6 2010, 02:41 PM
- - Assange   That's funny coming from an irresponsible lead...   Dec 6 2010, 03:15 PM
|- - African   QUOTE (Assange @ Dec 6 2010, 04:15 PM) Th...   Dec 6 2010, 03:19 PM
- - Assange   If they declare war we should throw 10000000000000...   Dec 6 2010, 03:22 PM
|- - African   QUOTE (Assange @ Dec 6 2010, 04:22 PM) If...   Dec 6 2010, 03:29 PM
- - Assange   What I am saying is that we should blow ourselves ...   Dec 6 2010, 03:32 PM
|- - African   QUOTE (Assange @ Dec 6 2010, 04:32 PM) Wh...   Dec 6 2010, 03:41 PM
- - retaxis   The thing is, what he is saying we all already kne...   Dec 6 2010, 09:43 PM
- - Lorax   Australia is a genocidal country that was and is i...   Dec 6 2010, 10:12 PM
- - Lorax   dp   Dec 6 2010, 10:13 PM
- - AsianGames   Nothing new here Imperialism and Hypocrisy are ess...   Dec 6 2010, 10:27 PM
- - qwerty2010   Don't joke about this, it's closer than yo...   Dec 7 2010, 12:02 AM
|- - African   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 7 2010, 01:02 AM)...   Dec 7 2010, 03:01 AM
- - qwerty2010   Mods, Thank you for the deletion . Sorry for retur...   Dec 7 2010, 07:55 AM
- - Titanium   The Western World consists of a very large part of...   Dec 7 2010, 12:20 PM
|- - AsianGames   QUOTE (Titanium @ Dec 7 2010, 12:20 PM) T...   Dec 7 2010, 07:35 PM
- - MiddleKingdom1   Did you know that Australia has the same size popu...   Dec 7 2010, 04:34 PM
- - InitialDJay   i wouldn't second guess that china would use n...   Dec 7 2010, 10:47 PM
- - matigasngulo   Kevin Rudd is a #1 Machiavellian / Follower of Han...   Dec 8 2010, 06:10 AM
- - swingdoctor   I'm Australian and although I'm personally...   Dec 8 2010, 06:37 AM
|- - Hugham   QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 8 2010, 07:37 PM...   Dec 8 2010, 12:18 PM
|- - AsianGames   QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 8 2010, 06:37 AM...   Dec 8 2010, 11:44 PM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (AsianGames @ Dec 9 2010, 12:44 AM)...   Dec 9 2010, 04:16 AM
|- - LiquidRoosevelt   QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 9 2010, 04:16 AM...   Dec 9 2010, 10:04 AM
- - MiddleKingdom1   I don't know why Taiwanese businessmen would s...   Dec 8 2010, 06:02 PM
- - LiquidRoosevelt   Australia doesn't want to fight China haha. It...   Dec 9 2010, 02:15 AM
- - robot_devil   The irony is that over the same period of time, sa...   Dec 9 2010, 04:48 AM
- - hupehdesi   QUOTE (bear11 @ Dec 6 2010, 04:32 AM) For...   Dec 9 2010, 06:36 PM
- - MiddleKingdom1   QUOTE (swingdoctor)Well I guess, since it is Kevin...   Dec 9 2010, 08:19 PM
- - MiddleKingdom1   QUOTE The irony is that over the same period of ti...   Dec 9 2010, 08:23 PM
|- - LiquidRoosevelt   QUOTE (MiddleKingdom1 @ Dec 9 2010, 08:23...   Dec 9 2010, 08:54 PM
|- - KraterosHellas   QUOTE (MiddleKingdom1 @ Dec 9 2010, 09:23...   Dec 10 2010, 08:07 AM
- - MiddleKingdom1   China will have a 5th gen F-22 equivalent up by 20...   Dec 9 2010, 10:40 PM
|- - LiquidRoosevelt   QUOTE (MiddleKingdom1 @ Dec 9 2010, 10:40...   Dec 10 2010, 01:44 AM
|- - orange peel   QUOTE (LiquidRoosevelt @ Dec 10 2010, 02...   Dec 11 2010, 10:39 PM
- - qwerty2010   And a Merry Christmas to everyone! MUST WA...   Dec 10 2010, 04:38 AM
- - qwerty2010   The PLOT THICKENS....apparently, Rudd was axed by ...   Dec 10 2010, 06:14 AM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 10 2010, 07:14 AM...   Dec 12 2010, 05:27 PM
- - qwerty2010   Looks like the US orchestrated a coup against Rudd...   Dec 10 2010, 06:23 AM
|- - orange peel   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 10 2010, 07:23 AM...   Dec 11 2010, 10:43 PM
|- - qwerty2010   QUOTE (orange peel @ Dec 11 2010, 11:43 P...   Dec 12 2010, 11:31 PM
- - hupehdesi   QUOTE (bear11 @ Dec 6 2010, 04:32 AM) For...   Dec 10 2010, 06:32 PM
|- - qwerty2010   QUOTE (hupehdesi @ Dec 10 2010, 07:32 PM)...   Dec 11 2010, 03:48 AM
- - oGsInca   History of Western imperialism in East Asia: - Eu...   Dec 10 2010, 08:11 PM
- - MiddleKingdom1   King of British Empire, King Edward VII responded ...   Dec 11 2010, 08:50 PM
|- - KraterosHellas   QUOTE (MiddleKingdom1 @ Dec 11 2010, 08:5...   Dec 14 2010, 03:42 AM
- - UnZipped   any opinion of puppet states like australia does n...   Dec 11 2010, 09:53 PM
- - MiddleKingdom1   Australia's leadership advocating for war with...   Dec 12 2010, 08:14 PM
- - qwerty2010   swingdoctor, I have no idea what your background i...   Dec 12 2010, 11:24 PM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 13 2010, 12:24 AM...   Dec 13 2010, 05:02 AM
|- - qwerty2010   QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 13 2010, 06:02 A...   Dec 13 2010, 05:27 AM
||- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 13 2010, 06:27 AM...   Dec 13 2010, 09:01 AM
||- - qwerty2010   QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 13 2010, 10:01 A...   Dec 13 2010, 11:12 PM
|- - xentradi97   No need to compare whose d!cks are bigger. Th...   Dec 15 2010, 08:46 PM
|- - African   QUOTE (xentradi97 @ Dec 15 2010, 09:46 PM...   Dec 19 2010, 02:33 PM
|- - manko   QUOTE (African @ Dec 19 2010, 02:33 PM) I...   Dec 19 2010, 06:02 PM
||- - xentradi97   QUOTE (manko @ Dec 19 2010, 06:02 PM) How...   Dec 19 2010, 08:34 PM
|- - xentradi97   QUOTE (African @ Dec 19 2010, 02:33 PM) I...   Dec 19 2010, 08:31 PM
- - African   I wonder who would go ahead to try to launch any m...   Dec 13 2010, 12:46 PM
- - AsianGames   China should start a program called :The WMDs Prol...   Dec 13 2010, 04:13 PM
- - qwerty2010   swingdoctor, it's not just Rudd, but a host of...   Dec 13 2010, 10:44 PM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 13 2010, 11:44 PM...   Dec 14 2010, 12:41 AM
- - qwerty2010   swingdoctor, I find that the loyal pro-US voices ...   Dec 14 2010, 03:25 AM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 14 2010, 04:25 AM...   Dec 14 2010, 05:27 AM
- - swingdoctor   QUOTE These comments outline who really calls the ...   Dec 14 2010, 05:28 AM
- - qwerty2010   swingdoctor, you remind me so much of all the othe...   Dec 14 2010, 06:22 AM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 14 2010, 07:22 AM...   Dec 14 2010, 07:44 AM
- - matigasngulo   note that this isn't from wikileaks, but new. ...   Dec 14 2010, 08:49 PM
- - qwerty2010   swingdoctor, I will let others decide for themselv...   Dec 15 2010, 03:14 AM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 15 2010, 04:14 AM...   Dec 15 2010, 07:04 AM
|- - qwerty2010   QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 15 2010, 08:04 A...   Dec 15 2010, 09:38 AM
|- - swingdoctor   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 15 2010, 10:38 AM...   Dec 15 2010, 04:22 PM
- - har   I don't understand what you people are arguing...   Dec 15 2010, 06:25 AM
|- - qwerty2010   QUOTE (har @ Dec 15 2010, 07:25 AM) I don...   Dec 15 2010, 09:51 AM
- - MakaPrime   ignore them and just work hard.   Dec 15 2010, 09:44 AM
- - qwerty2010   QUOTE (MakaPrime @ Dec 15 2010, 10:44 AM)...   Dec 15 2010, 09:55 AM
- - African   QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 15 2010, 09:55 AM...   Dec 15 2010, 01:27 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd September 2014 - 03:10 AM