Meanwhile there have been a number of recent terror attacks on Jews and opponents of the Iranian regime in London. Link here from Security Minister.
The group that have claimed most of the attacks and many in other parts of Europe call themselves the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, which is currently being investigated for links with Iran.
@Pomona. It's pretty common for an opposition government to reverse the policies of the previous one. You really don't have to blame racism.
You do when racism (and jealousy) are the primary motivators. No amount of mental gymnastics will change the fact that Trump is a racist and it's a major influence on his decision making, such as it is. Are you trying to claim that Trump isn't racist or that he somehow manages to compartmentalise his loathing of the only Black US President and consider policies solely on merit? Neither position is remotely credible.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
AFF
How do you see the difference between the "rules based order" and "international law"?
As for China and "international law", there are plenty of examples of breaches with their actions in the South China Sea.
But I assume you would not count them as breaches (as China doesn't) because they don't accord with China's idea of international law.
It's all a bit of a farce isn't it?
So the US is well within its rights to protect itself for national security reasons according to your definitions.
Rules based order operates informally and unilaterally based on commercial interests, without the review debate and consent of national governing bodies, and is enforced by threats and bribes.
International law operates by treaty ratified by the governng bodies of all parties with agreed-upon norms of fulfillment of terms and conditions, and agreed-upon penalties for breach of duty.
I am not certain what breaches of international law you refer to in the South China Sea. China by its own definition is one nation indivisible. Like America. Imagine if Texas and Alaska decided they didn't want to be part of the union any more? Americans already fought that war 170 years ago and they would fight it again. The fact that China views Taiwan as their version of Texas, and that the Taiwan Strait is their Colorado River apparently never enters anybody's heads.
The United States has indeed undertaken many unendorsed aggressive adventures abroad in the name of "national security" (code for the petrodollar). They are playing by informal rules that nobody else is required to agree with, that no international or national body has legitimized, though they may not actively oppose. When Americans try to impose those rules on a nation like China, the Chinese are perfectly within their right to bypass them and tell America to go piss up a rope. Which I believe they have done. Politely.
Netanyahu uses "Judeo-Christian" all the time, when appealing to xtian-right culture warriors. It's cringe as hell, but OTOH, he's not exactly a fringe voice in the global Jewish community, and he and his enablers should probably bear at least some responsibility if non-Jews get the idea that the term is okay.
Even the Zionists in my circles are embarrassed by that guy. He's a politician and a shameless panderer, and exactly the sort of person to use that rhetoric in the most cynical fashion imaginable. He's a tool's tool and I suspect, once things settle down, I think there is going to be a reckoning. That's one reason he has to keep pushing this war. His career depends on it.
Donald Trump has been basically urinating all over international law since the beginning of his administration.
Cynical power mongers will sometimes appeal to rules and principles at convenience, but that doesn't amount to much. You don't get much cred for appealing to the rules only when it suits you. That's where things like "character" and "integrity" begin to matter a lot in politics at all levels, and the man simply has none.
@Pomona. It's pretty common for an opposition government to reverse the policies of the previous one. You really don't have to blame racism.
And probably no one would if Trump himself hadn’t provided indications that there was racism at work.
You might want to consider the possibility that someone who lives in the US, as I do, and who has a sixty-plus year lifetime of observing politics and race dynamics in the US, could have a better handle on all of this than does someone who lives on the other side of the world.
Netanyahu uses "Judeo-Christian" all the time, when appealing to xtian-right culture warriors. It's cringe as hell, but OTOH, he's not exactly a fringe voice in the global Jewish community, and he and his enablers should probably bear at least some responsibility if non-Jews get the idea that the term is okay.
Even the Zionists in my circles are embarrassed by that guy. He's a politician and a shameless panderer, and exactly the sort of person to use that rhetoric in the most cynical fashion imaginable. He's a tool's tool and I suspect, once things settle down, I think there is going to be a reckoning. That's one reason he has to keep pushing this war. His career depends on it.
He's the longest serving PM, who has been PM for a fifth of the history of Israel. His overall bellicosity is generally relatively popular within Israel insofar as we can tell from polling, and Israeli politics is likely to move rightwards after Netanyahu.
@WhimsicalChristian why are you so keen to assert that Trump isn't racist in terms of his foreign policy? Also, you seem to think that racism is some kind of external and independent force that can be blamed, rather than as part of someone's personal beliefs and actions. Racism is part of who Trump is; therefore it will necessarily influence his decisions in foreign policy as well as domestic policy. His racism isn't independent of his decisions but baked into his thought processes.
He's the longest serving PM, who has been PM for a fifth of the history of Israel. His overall bellicosity is generally relatively popular within Israel insofar as we can tell from polling, and Israeli politics is likely to move rightwards after Netanyahu.
I'm not sure about "generally believed," but I think he might be someone who is walking the line of distributing the frustration evenly across feuding camps. Peaceniks think he's being too violent, land-inseceure warmongers think he's not being violent enough, and so we get a kind of Bill Clinton effect where he's walking the knife's edge between two factions. And he is, in a weird way, rather skilled at it, no doubt.
And of course the war itself is changing perceptions. Having provoked the attack from Hamas and Iran, he can now use their response to make warmongering more popular because his own country is now in terror. He's driving events to further his own political survival, cynically and effectively. And, yes, political inertia means that the hardliners will likely be more popular when he's gone.
I'm not sure how much of that is intentional, or just a consequence of his own self-interested struggle. He was up on corruption charges before all of this broke out, if I recall. I really think part of this started as a simple "wag the dog" operation, and I think he and Trump are similar types in this regard. "Fear the enemy," really a kind of racism, is good for building group cohesion among your base. Ironically, it's also what most of the middle eastern dictators run on as well, in the opposite direction. Evil stuff, but it works.
I do think he's playing the game rather well, in a cynical sense. But I don't think he's doing well by his country or his people in the long run, unless you're into bloody expansionist wars and ethnic cleansing. This kind of hatred runs down generations, you don't need to do centuries-deep analysis to understand why people in the region are resentful.
And yeah, I do think the word "Judeo-Christian" is mostly used to feed a marriage of convenience between the mostly-white-American Christian right wing and the Zionist faction of Judaism. There's nothing else there. Again, most Jewish folks I know don't have fond feelings about Christianity. We stole their holy texts, distorted their philosophies, and spent 2000 years trying to manipulate them into becoming us, sometimes at sword point, later gun point. Plus extermination and forced relocation campaigns. We've been really great friends. Nobody could ever tell us apart.
The more I think about it, the more the phrase "Judeo-Christian" makes me want to retch. It's disrespectful in the extreme. It's so mercenary and dishonest.
I agree that in the modern context Judeo-Christian is problematic. But saying we stole the Jewish books is an overstatement. Most of the early church were Jews or had been attending the synagogue and I don't think anyone in the early church thought they were starting a new religion.
When I was young I heard a Jew said they thought Christianity should be considered an eccentric branch of Judaism and I think they had a point.
I agree that in the modern context Judeo-Christian is problematic. But saying we stole the Jewish books is an overstatement. Most of the early church were Jews or had been attending the synagogue and I don't think anyone in the early church thought they were starting a new religion.
When I was young I heard a Jew said they thought Christianity should be considered an eccentric branch of Judaism and I think they had a point.
Yeah, that's fair. I'm somewhat echoing the partisan attitude I've received from Jewish folks who are rather shoulder-chippy about it.
Whatever went down in the first century was a lot messier than that, I think. And I think it's way past adjudicating. And like The Crucible, you can see a lot of contemporary politics in the way people appropriate past grievances.
He's the longest serving PM, who has been PM for a fifth of the history of Israel. His overall bellicosity is generally relatively popular within Israel insofar as we can tell from polling, and Israeli politics is likely to move rightwards after Netanyahu.
I'm not sure about "generally believed," but I think he might be someone who is walking the line of distributing the frustration evenly across feuding camps. Peaceniks think he's being too violent, land-inseceure warmongers think he's not being violent enough, and so we get a kind of Bill Clinton effect where he's walking the knife's edge between two factions. And he is, in a weird way, rather skilled at it, no doubt.
Which peaceniks are you thinking of ? The few hundred - at most - who turn up to anti war rallies? I think you aren't reckoning with current opinion:
I think "current opinion" is a changeable thing, and has been. I've certainly read of Israeli protests in the thousands against war in Palestine, even last year. That said. you're not wrong about the present state.
I think "current opinion" is a changeable thing, and has been.
I don't see how you get back from 56% of Israeli Jews wanting to expel *Israeli* Arabs from Israel.
The protests weren't against the war so much as wanting the government to cut a deal to get the hostages back.
It is indeed difficult to see. But surely it is imperative to try. Because the alternative is extremely dark.
You are right of course, but equally that kind of depth of feeling is not something that changes like the wind, and at the moment none of the politicians seem to want to try anything different.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
AFF
How do you see the difference between the "rules based order" and "international law"?
As for China and "international law", there are plenty of examples of breaches with their actions in the South China Sea.
But I assume you would not count them as breaches (as China doesn't) because they don't accord with China's idea of international law.
It's all a bit of a farce isn't it?
So the US is well within its rights to protect itself for national security reasons according to your definitions.
Rules based order operates informally and unilaterally based on commercial interests, without the review debate and consent of national governing bodies, and is enforced by threats and bribes.
International law operates by treaty ratified by the governng bodies of all parties with agreed-upon norms of fulfillment of terms and conditions, and agreed-upon penalties for breach of duty.
I am not certain what breaches of international law you refer to in the South China Sea. China by its own definition is one nation indivisible. Like America. Imagine if Texas and Alaska decided they didn't want to be part of the union any more? Americans already fought that war 170 years ago and they would fight it again. The fact that China views Taiwan as their version of Texas, and that the Taiwan Strait is their Colorado River apparently never enters anybody's heads.
The United States has indeed undertaken many unendorsed aggressive adventures abroad in the name of "national security" (code for the petrodollar). They are playing by informal rules that nobody else is required to agree with, that no international or national body has legitimized, though they may not actively oppose. When Americans try to impose those rules on a nation like China, the Chinese are perfectly within their right to bypass them and tell America to go piss up a rope. Which I believe they have done. Politely.
AFF
My understanding is China has lots of violations on the world stage including breaching UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) with disputes with the Phillipines, Australia and Taiwan, as well as the treaty with Hong Kong and various human rights violations like horrendous treatment of minorities like the Uyghurs, and overt economic bullying.
But it seems you side with them. Why would you stick up for a communist regime?
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
AFF
How do you see the difference between the "rules based order" and "international law"?
As for China and "international law", there are plenty of examples of breaches with their actions in the South China Sea.
But I assume you would not count them as breaches (as China doesn't) because they don't accord with China's idea of international law.
It's all a bit of a farce isn't it?
So the US is well within its rights to protect itself for national security reasons according to your definitions.
Rules based order operates informally and unilaterally based on commercial interests, without the review debate and consent of national governing bodies, and is enforced by threats and bribes.
International law operates by treaty ratified by the governng bodies of all parties with agreed-upon norms of fulfillment of terms and conditions, and agreed-upon penalties for breach of duty.
I am not certain what breaches of international law you refer to in the South China Sea. China by its own definition is one nation indivisible. Like America. Imagine if Texas and Alaska decided they didn't want to be part of the union any more? Americans already fought that war 170 years ago and they would fight it again. The fact that China views Taiwan as their version of Texas, and that the Taiwan Strait is their Colorado River apparently never enters anybody's heads.
The United States has indeed undertaken many unendorsed aggressive adventures abroad in the name of "national security" (code for the petrodollar). They are playing by informal rules that nobody else is required to agree with, that no international or national body has legitimized, though they may not actively oppose. When Americans try to impose those rules on a nation like China, the Chinese are perfectly within their right to bypass them and tell America to go piss up a rope. Which I believe they have done. Politely.
AFF
My understanding is China has lots of violations on the world stage including breaching UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) with disputes with the Phillipines, Australia and Taiwan, as well as the treaty with Hong Kong and various human rights violations like horrendous treatment of minorities like the Uyghurs, and overt economic bullying.
But it seems you side with them. Why would you stick up for a communist regime?
Seriously? You support Trump and we're supposed to believe you give a shit about human rights violations or the treatment of minorities, or indeed economic bullying?
It is indeed important to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to discourage nuclear prolifieration in general. In that sense, it is bipartisan.
But Trump's attempts to do this are neither moral nor effective.
So you can see that a neo-con like John Bolton is keen to topple the Iranian regime, and he is not too bothered about the morality. But he is distressed that it is being done so badly and ineffectively. Getting Trump to support your pet project is dangerous because he might a) change his mind a few weeks later or b) stuff it up so badly that you wish he'd left it alone.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
AFF
How do you see the difference between the "rules based order" and "international law"?
As for China and "international law", there are plenty of examples of breaches with their actions in the South China Sea.
But I assume you would not count them as breaches (as China doesn't) because they don't accord with China's idea of international law.
It's all a bit of a farce isn't it?
So the US is well within its rights to protect itself for national security reasons according to your definitions.
Rules based order operates informally and unilaterally based on commercial interests, without the review debate and consent of national governing bodies, and is enforced by threats and bribes.
International law operates by treaty ratified by the governng bodies of all parties with agreed-upon norms of fulfillment of terms and conditions, and agreed-upon penalties for breach of duty.
I am not certain what breaches of international law you refer to in the South China Sea. China by its own definition is one nation indivisible. Like America. Imagine if Texas and Alaska decided they didn't want to be part of the union any more? Americans already fought that war 170 years ago and they would fight it again. The fact that China views Taiwan as their version of Texas, and that the Taiwan Strait is their Colorado River apparently never enters anybody's heads.
The United States has indeed undertaken many unendorsed aggressive adventures abroad in the name of "national security" (code for the petrodollar). They are playing by informal rules that nobody else is required to agree with, that no international or national body has legitimized, though they may not actively oppose. When Americans try to impose those rules on a nation like China, the Chinese are perfectly within their right to bypass them and tell America to go piss up a rope. Which I believe they have done. Politely.
AFF
My understanding is China has lots of violations on the world stage including breaching UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) with disputes with the Phillipines, Australia and Taiwan, as well as the treaty with Hong Kong and various human rights violations like horrendous treatment of minorities like the Uyghurs, and overt economic bullying.
But it seems you side with them. Why would you stick up for a communist regime?
I don't side with them. It's up to the international regulating bodies to resolve disputes regarding infractions of international law. Just because someone SAYS there's been a violation doesn't mean that the case has been adjudicated in their favor. Until that is established, I'm happy to let those bodies proceed according to their judicial protocols and to recognize the legitimacy of their findings.
I side with the right of any sovereign nation I don't care if they are communists or fascists to conduct free and lawful trade with any partner they choose and I stand firmly against the use of currency and international banking being weaponized or extorted against any nation that seeks to do so.
When it comes to human rights I think that every nation has its issues. You as an Australian, and me as Canadian, with our national records of treatment of aboriginal peoples, can hardly claim superiority on this issue. It seems that nobody has the moral high ground from which to throw brickbats. We can all do better on that front.
Chopping a section out of Palestine and making it a Jewish state without consulting the Palestinians or ensuring that new state would respect the people who were already living there didn't exactly aid stability in the region either.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
AFF
How do you see the difference between the "rules based order" and "international law"?
As for China and "international law", there are plenty of examples of breaches with their actions in the South China Sea.
But I assume you would not count them as breaches (as China doesn't) because they don't accord with China's idea of international law.
It's all a bit of a farce isn't it?
So the US is well within its rights to protect itself for national security reasons according to your definitions.
Rules based order operates informally and unilaterally based on commercial interests, without the review debate and consent of national governing bodies, and is enforced by threats and bribes.
International law operates by treaty ratified by the governng bodies of all parties with agreed-upon norms of fulfillment of terms and conditions, and agreed-upon penalties for breach of duty.
I am not certain what breaches of international law you refer to in the South China Sea. China by its own definition is one nation indivisible. Like America. Imagine if Texas and Alaska decided they didn't want to be part of the union any more? Americans already fought that war 170 years ago and they would fight it again. The fact that China views Taiwan as their version of Texas, and that the Taiwan Strait is their Colorado River apparently never enters anybody's heads.
The United States has indeed undertaken many unendorsed aggressive adventures abroad in the name of "national security" (code for the petrodollar). They are playing by informal rules that nobody else is required to agree with, that no international or national body has legitimized, though they may not actively oppose. When Americans try to impose those rules on a nation like China, the Chinese are perfectly within their right to bypass them and tell America to go piss up a rope. Which I believe they have done. Politely.
AFF
My understanding is China has lots of violations on the world stage including breaching UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)
I concede to an excess of what seems anti western, anti trump sentiment. I don't think this thread is really interested in looking beyond the superficial leftish general view to the deeper issues involved.
The deeper issues as I see them are the rise of BRICS+ and the threat that poses to western liberal democracies, as I've said before.
Being Australian, China is a real threat to us in its claims around the South China Sea.
If China takes Taiwan it is a threat to the international order in terms of high end chips. China could hold the world hostage in AI and many other software system developments.
I see China as the primary threat to the world order.
I wonder, if besides destroying nuclear capabilities and wounding Iran so it can't reek so much havoc in the Middle East, the US is curtailing the flow of oil to weaken China.
I concede to an excess of what seems anti western, anti trump sentiment. I don't think this thread is really interested in looking beyond the superficial leftish general view to the deeper issues involved.
.
It’s hard to respond to the deeper issues as you see them before you respond to the criticisms of your assertion that Iran has been the biggest destabiliser in the Middle East.
And Alan Cresswell’s post, based on his qualifications and understanding of nuclear physics is an effective refutation of the assertion of an imminent nuclear threat.
These arguments do not seem to me like anti-western anti-trump sentiments. You do your Shipmates a disservice for arguing that.
Of course you are free to stick to your guns. But the credibility of your arguments is not helped by your lack of recognition of effective counter-arguments.
Nor do you help your credibility by assertions such as “I see China as the primary threat to the world order”. That strikes me as a an overstated generalisation.
There is a decent argument that China is becoming a threat to the US position as the world’s leading reserve currency, but I would argue that some of the decisions of the current US administration have themselves damaged that position.
It’s hardly a monolithic bloc when it comes to foreign policy!
But despite its diverse membership (which represents over half the world population) it looks as though there is a lot of support for reducing the reserve currency power of the US. Now why do you think that might be?
I concede to an excess of what seems anti western, anti trump sentiment. I don't think this thread is really interested in looking beyond the superficial leftish general view to the deeper issues involved.
This looks to me like Bulverism, the term coined by C S Lewis for the manoeuvre where someone diagnoses an argument without refuting it: "you're only saying that because you're a leftist / rightist / etc."
I think that’s quite likely.. But I’m being careful. Not saying “You say that because you’re a Trump admirer/supporter”. A kind of reciprocal Bulverism.
If you're worried about Taiwan, you should be worried about Donald Trump's "sphere of influence" notion that - if I'm reading him correctly - is deciding to hand a big chunk of the planet to China as a concession. He's an isolationist. He wants America to turn inward to her own interests and raise a great big American middle finger to the rest of the world.
While it's true I have no fondness for the current incumbent, I do not think my animus is born out of prejudice or stupidity. Quite the opposite. And I don't think his ideas are going to be good for you, even according to your expressed concerns.
I concede to an excess of what seems anti western, anti trump sentiment. I don't think this thread is really interested in looking beyond the superficial leftish general view to the deeper issues involved.
The deeper issues as I see them are the rise of BRICS+ and the threat that poses to western liberal democracies, as I've said before.
Being Australian, China is a real threat to us in its claims around the South China Sea.
If China takes Taiwan it is a threat to the international order in terms of high end chips. China could hold the world hostage in AI and many other software system developments.
I see China as the primary threat to the world order.
I wonder, if besides destroying nuclear capabilities and wounding Iran so it can't reek so much havoc in the Middle East, the US is curtailing the flow of oil to weaken China.
If so, a good strategy in my opinion.
Time shall tell.
You are most certainly correct in the view that the situation in Iran is aimed at weakening China. It is also aimed at destroying its Belt and Road initiative and cutting off Russia's north/south shipping route from the Arctic circle to the Indian Ocean and putting a stake in the heart of BRICS+
It's for these reasons that China and Russia will not let Iran fall to western interests.
As far as threat to high end chips the fault lies with the west for not diversifying sources and developing alternate proprietary technologies. China doesn't need Taiwan's chips and neither does Russia, they have their own printing technology, and they developed it in relatively short order.
The west relies heavily on monopolistic interests that work against its security in the long run. Market capitalism doesn't support the kind of rapid research and deployment of developments if there's "no ROI". If it ain't broke don't fix it is a recipe for stagnation and decline when your competitors are well funded and relentless in their pursuit of better things for their own sake.
Conversely the west chases the chimera of ponzi-type pipe dreams like AI Everything creating energy and financial resource sinks that rob people of their hard earned cash in hopes of unrealistic returns. We're already seeing the signs of bubble collapse on this front.
There's a lot wrong with how so called "liberal democracies" are functioning right now in the west, and around the world, and it's kind of insulting to imply that those of us who can see this are necessarily on the "side of the enemy". I'm on the side of reason, cooperation, consent, harmony, law and not-stupidity and as far as any power or society displays behaviours that are converse to this, I am against those behaviours.
There are deeper issues underpinning world events, you're correct, but I don't think you and I will agree far enough on what those issues are in order to have any meaningful kind of dialogue.
To quote a well known song, “there’s a whole lot of shaking going on.” If I may throw into the mix from a European perspective, there is the death of Atlanticism. The US no longer feels like a reliable ally.
All of which underpins the European reluctance and the NATO reluctance to get militarily involved in the Iran conflict. We were long term Allies, we weren’t consulted, we are expected to support nevertheless and are lambasted for not doing so. This is on top of the significant scepticism in Europe about the value of this military adventure for straightforward strategic reasons.
The death of Atlanticism has been predicted for a while, but now seems very much with us. Post Trump I suppose it could be resurrected but I’m no longer sure that will be possible or even desirable.
What is confusing to me is that the Trump administration seems by turns to be both isolationist and imperialist. Some kind of new world order is emerging and I don’t think that is all to do with China being an alleged threat to “the world order”. It seems more to do with an ongoing realignment of power blocks involving a lot more than China.
I apologise if I was dismissive in my earlier post.
It just gets a little old if you're the only person arguing a thing on a thread for weeks and it feels like my evidence is ignored or sidelined so why bother refuting back when I feel like I've said it all before.
Re China @Doublethink and others, I have said it all before on previous Hell threads. This likely isn't the right thread to rehash it. Tho I do appreciate your input on that @ A Feminine Force
@Barnabas62 I didn't know what assertions you were referring to. Re Iran's readiness for nuclear weapons? Some evidence suggests it could be pretty quick.
Re Iran being such a big destabiliser? I thought that would be obvious in their funding proxies.
Maybe we could start a different thread on global foreign policy, BRICS+ etc. A Feminine Force has hinted at the problem of globalisation.
@Bullfrog My understanding is the US has committed to defending Taiwan, and in turn, that defends Australia and the world.
There's also another interesting article on Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapon plans that the allies didn't realise they were disrupting.
After his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Hussein ordered a crash, accelerated nuclear weapons program. This program, far less advanced than Iran’s, was advancing steadily until the allied bombing campaign in January 1991 ended it, incidentally without the United States and its allies knowing it had done so./i]
One of the site administrators @Alan Cresswell , who is a nuclear physicist, posted a reply to you a few posts up giving his professional opinion, with well argued reasons, that “imminent” was an unlikely word to use when considering the development in Iran of nuclear weapons.
@WhimsicalChristian : I think our president has sewn some serious doubt in that department. He's treating every foreign policy commitment like a protection racket for the personal gain of "his" people (as he understands that concept.)
Plus, and here's a free link, all of the munitions he's throwing at Iran are munitions he won't be able to use to intimidate China and Russia, and I imagine they're aware of this situation.
And I repeat, I do not like our president, but if you know me (and some folks here have known me for a long time,) I am not a man given to hatred. I think he's making some terrifyingly bad decisions that we are going to be paying for for a long time.
Comments
The group that have claimed most of the attacks and many in other parts of Europe call themselves the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, which is currently being investigated for links with Iran.
“International law” is internationally codified and there is an internationally recognised court to judge actions and clarify meaning.
“Rules based order” is a much vaguer phrase.
@Nick Tamen and @Pomona happy to talk if you want to discuss the US National Security or Defence strategy. It's available online for anyone to see.
You do when racism (and jealousy) are the primary motivators. No amount of mental gymnastics will change the fact that Trump is a racist and it's a major influence on his decision making, such as it is. Are you trying to claim that Trump isn't racist or that he somehow manages to compartmentalise his loathing of the only Black US President and consider policies solely on merit? Neither position is remotely credible.
Rules based order operates informally and unilaterally based on commercial interests, without the review debate and consent of national governing bodies, and is enforced by threats and bribes.
International law operates by treaty ratified by the governng bodies of all parties with agreed-upon norms of fulfillment of terms and conditions, and agreed-upon penalties for breach of duty.
I am not certain what breaches of international law you refer to in the South China Sea. China by its own definition is one nation indivisible. Like America. Imagine if Texas and Alaska decided they didn't want to be part of the union any more? Americans already fought that war 170 years ago and they would fight it again. The fact that China views Taiwan as their version of Texas, and that the Taiwan Strait is their Colorado River apparently never enters anybody's heads.
The United States has indeed undertaken many unendorsed aggressive adventures abroad in the name of "national security" (code for the petrodollar). They are playing by informal rules that nobody else is required to agree with, that no international or national body has legitimized, though they may not actively oppose. When Americans try to impose those rules on a nation like China, the Chinese are perfectly within their right to bypass them and tell America to go piss up a rope. Which I believe they have done. Politely.
AFF
And as a side note, until the 90s, both China and Taiwan had a One China Policy, and the KMT occasionally makes motions in that direction.
Even the Zionists in my circles are embarrassed by that guy. He's a politician and a shameless panderer, and exactly the sort of person to use that rhetoric in the most cynical fashion imaginable. He's a tool's tool and I suspect, once things settle down, I think there is going to be a reckoning. That's one reason he has to keep pushing this war. His career depends on it.
Cynical power mongers will sometimes appeal to rules and principles at convenience, but that doesn't amount to much. You don't get much cred for appealing to the rules only when it suits you. That's where things like "character" and "integrity" begin to matter a lot in politics at all levels, and the man simply has none.
You might want to consider the possibility that someone who lives in the US, as I do, and who has a sixty-plus year lifetime of observing politics and race dynamics in the US, could have a better handle on all of this than does someone who lives on the other side of the world.
He's the longest serving PM, who has been PM for a fifth of the history of Israel. His overall bellicosity is generally relatively popular within Israel insofar as we can tell from polling, and Israeli politics is likely to move rightwards after Netanyahu.
I'm not sure about "generally believed," but I think he might be someone who is walking the line of distributing the frustration evenly across feuding camps. Peaceniks think he's being too violent, land-inseceure warmongers think he's not being violent enough, and so we get a kind of Bill Clinton effect where he's walking the knife's edge between two factions. And he is, in a weird way, rather skilled at it, no doubt.
And of course the war itself is changing perceptions. Having provoked the attack from Hamas and Iran, he can now use their response to make warmongering more popular because his own country is now in terror. He's driving events to further his own political survival, cynically and effectively. And, yes, political inertia means that the hardliners will likely be more popular when he's gone.
I'm not sure how much of that is intentional, or just a consequence of his own self-interested struggle. He was up on corruption charges before all of this broke out, if I recall. I really think part of this started as a simple "wag the dog" operation, and I think he and Trump are similar types in this regard. "Fear the enemy," really a kind of racism, is good for building group cohesion among your base. Ironically, it's also what most of the middle eastern dictators run on as well, in the opposite direction. Evil stuff, but it works.
I do think he's playing the game rather well, in a cynical sense. But I don't think he's doing well by his country or his people in the long run, unless you're into bloody expansionist wars and ethnic cleansing. This kind of hatred runs down generations, you don't need to do centuries-deep analysis to understand why people in the region are resentful.
And yeah, I do think the word "Judeo-Christian" is mostly used to feed a marriage of convenience between the mostly-white-American Christian right wing and the Zionist faction of Judaism. There's nothing else there. Again, most Jewish folks I know don't have fond feelings about Christianity. We stole their holy texts, distorted their philosophies, and spent 2000 years trying to manipulate them into becoming us, sometimes at sword point, later gun point. Plus extermination and forced relocation campaigns. We've been really great friends. Nobody could ever tell us apart.
The more I think about it, the more the phrase "Judeo-Christian" makes me want to retch. It's disrespectful in the extreme. It's so mercenary and dishonest.
When I was young I heard a Jew said they thought Christianity should be considered an eccentric branch of Judaism and I think they had a point.
Yeah, that's fair. I'm somewhat echoing the partisan attitude I've received from Jewish folks who are rather shoulder-chippy about it.
Whatever went down in the first century was a lot messier than that, I think. And I think it's way past adjudicating. And like The Crucible, you can see a lot of contemporary politics in the way people appropriate past grievances.
Which peaceniks are you thinking of ? The few hundred - at most - who turn up to anti war rallies? I think you aren't reckoning with current opinion:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majority-israelis-support-expulsion-palestinians-gaza-poll
Here's a piece by the author of the poll:
https://theconversation.com/in-israel-calls-for-genocide-have-migrated-from-the-margins-to-the-mainstream-250010
As well as a recent interview with genocide scholar Omar Bartov along similar lines:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/tnyradiohour/articles/3209c2cec4412c773faccda8
(and as above even earlier constructions omit how 'left on everything but the Palestinians' is a constant thread in even Labor Zionism)
I think "current opinion" is a changeable thing, and has been. I've certainly read of Israeli protests in the thousands against war in Palestine, even last year. That said. you're not wrong about the present state.
I don't see how you get back from 56% of Israeli Jews wanting to expel *Israeli* Arabs from Israel.
The protests weren't against the war so much as wanting the government to cut a deal to get the hostages back.
It is indeed difficult to see. But surely it is imperative to try. Because the alternative is extremely dark.
You are right of course, but equally that kind of depth of feeling is not something that changes like the wind, and at the moment none of the politicians seem to want to try anything different.
Somewhat more germane, current polling also indicates a majority against a ceasefire with Iran and Lebanon: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyxgxyeqpgo
My understanding is China has lots of violations on the world stage including breaching UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) with disputes with the Phillipines, Australia and Taiwan, as well as the treaty with Hong Kong and various human rights violations like horrendous treatment of minorities like the Uyghurs, and overt economic bullying.
But it seems you side with them. Why would you stick up for a communist regime?
Seriously? You support Trump and we're supposed to believe you give a shit about human rights violations or the treatment of minorities, or indeed economic bullying?
Kamala Harris has said that Iran is US's greatest adversary and her top priority was preventing nuclear weapons.
This is not just a Trump, republican issue. It is bipartisan.
I would agree.
Iran has been the biggest destabiliser of the Middle East since the 1970's.
But Trump's attempts to do this are neither moral nor effective.
So you can see that a neo-con like John Bolton is keen to topple the Iranian regime, and he is not too bothered about the morality. But he is distressed that it is being done so badly and ineffectively. Getting Trump to support your pet project is dangerous because he might a) change his mind a few weeks later or b) stuff it up so badly that you wish he'd left it alone.
I don't side with them. It's up to the international regulating bodies to resolve disputes regarding infractions of international law. Just because someone SAYS there's been a violation doesn't mean that the case has been adjudicated in their favor. Until that is established, I'm happy to let those bodies proceed according to their judicial protocols and to recognize the legitimacy of their findings.
I side with the right of any sovereign nation I don't care if they are communists or fascists to conduct free and lawful trade with any partner they choose and I stand firmly against the use of currency and international banking being weaponized or extorted against any nation that seeks to do so.
When it comes to human rights I think that every nation has its issues. You as an Australian, and me as Canadian, with our national records of treatment of aboriginal peoples, can hardly claim superiority on this issue. It seems that nobody has the moral high ground from which to throw brickbats. We can all do better on that front.
AFF
And before that the overthrow of the Mossadeq regime in Iran. I wonder who was behind that.
And that politicians have been known to say things merely to win votes.
Democrats have a long history of saying stupid things in public to pander to warmongers.
The facts are against your assertion.
None of us is saying that Iran isn’t disruptive.
You know who hasn't ratified UNCLOS? The US.
The deeper issues as I see them are the rise of BRICS+ and the threat that poses to western liberal democracies, as I've said before.
Being Australian, China is a real threat to us in its claims around the South China Sea.
If China takes Taiwan it is a threat to the international order in terms of high end chips. China could hold the world hostage in AI and many other software system developments.
I see China as the primary threat to the world order.
I wonder, if besides destroying nuclear capabilities and wounding Iran so it can't reek so much havoc in the Middle East, the US is curtailing the flow of oil to weaken China.
If so, a good strategy in my opinion.
Time shall tell.
It’s hard to respond to the deeper issues as you see them before you respond to the criticisms of your assertion that Iran has been the biggest destabiliser in the Middle East.
And Alan Cresswell’s post, based on his qualifications and understanding of nuclear physics is an effective refutation of the assertion of an imminent nuclear threat.
These arguments do not seem to me like anti-western anti-trump sentiments. You do your Shipmates a disservice for arguing that.
Of course you are free to stick to your guns. But the credibility of your arguments is not helped by your lack of recognition of effective counter-arguments.
Nor do you help your credibility by assertions such as “I see China as the primary threat to the world order”. That strikes me as a an overstated generalisation.
There is a decent argument that China is becoming a threat to the US position as the world’s leading reserve currency, but I would argue that some of the decisions of the current US administration have themselves damaged that position.
BRICS+
It’s hardly a monolithic bloc when it comes to foreign policy!
But despite its diverse membership (which represents over half the world population) it looks as though there is a lot of support for reducing the reserve currency power of the US. Now why do you think that might be?
I think that’s quite likely.. But I’m being careful. Not saying “You say that because you’re a Trump admirer/supporter”. A kind of reciprocal Bulverism.
If you're worried about Taiwan, you should be worried about Donald Trump's "sphere of influence" notion that - if I'm reading him correctly - is deciding to hand a big chunk of the planet to China as a concession. He's an isolationist. He wants America to turn inward to her own interests and raise a great big American middle finger to the rest of the world.
While it's true I have no fondness for the current incumbent, I do not think my animus is born out of prejudice or stupidity. Quite the opposite. And I don't think his ideas are going to be good for you, even according to your expressed concerns.
You are most certainly correct in the view that the situation in Iran is aimed at weakening China. It is also aimed at destroying its Belt and Road initiative and cutting off Russia's north/south shipping route from the Arctic circle to the Indian Ocean and putting a stake in the heart of BRICS+
It's for these reasons that China and Russia will not let Iran fall to western interests.
As far as threat to high end chips the fault lies with the west for not diversifying sources and developing alternate proprietary technologies. China doesn't need Taiwan's chips and neither does Russia, they have their own printing technology, and they developed it in relatively short order.
The west relies heavily on monopolistic interests that work against its security in the long run. Market capitalism doesn't support the kind of rapid research and deployment of developments if there's "no ROI". If it ain't broke don't fix it is a recipe for stagnation and decline when your competitors are well funded and relentless in their pursuit of better things for their own sake.
Conversely the west chases the chimera of ponzi-type pipe dreams like AI Everything creating energy and financial resource sinks that rob people of their hard earned cash in hopes of unrealistic returns. We're already seeing the signs of bubble collapse on this front.
There's a lot wrong with how so called "liberal democracies" are functioning right now in the west, and around the world, and it's kind of insulting to imply that those of us who can see this are necessarily on the "side of the enemy". I'm on the side of reason, cooperation, consent, harmony, law and not-stupidity and as far as any power or society displays behaviours that are converse to this, I am against those behaviours.
There are deeper issues underpinning world events, you're correct, but I don't think you and I will agree far enough on what those issues are in order to have any meaningful kind of dialogue.
AFF
To quote a well known song, “there’s a whole lot of shaking going on.” If I may throw into the mix from a European perspective, there is the death of Atlanticism. The US no longer feels like a reliable ally.
All of which underpins the European reluctance and the NATO reluctance to get militarily involved in the Iran conflict. We were long term Allies, we weren’t consulted, we are expected to support nevertheless and are lambasted for not doing so. This is on top of the significant scepticism in Europe about the value of this military adventure for straightforward strategic reasons.
The death of Atlanticism has been predicted for a while, but now seems very much with us. Post Trump I suppose it could be resurrected but I’m no longer sure that will be possible or even desirable.
What is confusing to me is that the Trump administration seems by turns to be both isolationist and imperialist. Some kind of new world order is emerging and I don’t think that is all to do with China being an alleged threat to “the world order”. It seems more to do with an ongoing realignment of power blocks involving a lot more than China.
It just gets a little old if you're the only person arguing a thing on a thread for weeks and it feels like my evidence is ignored or sidelined so why bother refuting back when I feel like I've said it all before.
Re China @Doublethink and others, I have said it all before on previous Hell threads. This likely isn't the right thread to rehash it. Tho I do appreciate your input on that @ A Feminine Force
@Barnabas62 I didn't know what assertions you were referring to. Re Iran's readiness for nuclear weapons? Some evidence suggests it could be pretty quick.
Re Iran being such a big destabiliser? I thought that would be obvious in their funding proxies.
Maybe we could start a different thread on global foreign policy, BRICS+ etc. A Feminine Force has hinted at the problem of globalisation.
@Bullfrog My understanding is the US has committed to defending Taiwan, and in turn, that defends Australia and the world.
After his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Hussein ordered a crash, accelerated nuclear weapons program. This program, far less advanced than Iran’s, was advancing steadily until the allied bombing campaign in January 1991 ended it, incidentally without the United States and its allies knowing it had done so./i]
One of the site administrators @Alan Cresswell , who is a nuclear physicist, posted a reply to you a few posts up giving his professional opinion, with well argued reasons, that “imminent” was an unlikely word to use when considering the development in Iran of nuclear weapons.
Your arguments don’t get ignored or sidelined. Folks offer opinions, with evidence, that your arguments are flawed.
Plus, and here's a free link, all of the munitions he's throwing at Iran are munitions he won't be able to use to intimidate China and Russia, and I imagine they're aware of this situation.
And I repeat, I do not like our president, but if you know me (and some folks here have known me for a long time,) I am not a man given to hatred. I think he's making some terrifyingly bad decisions that we are going to be paying for for a long time.