Nicholas Mulder's scholarly analysis of economic warfare should leave no one in doubt about sustained economic aggression that has been sold as serving the interests of peace and democracy.
One hundred plus years of military adventurism probably accounts for a sizeable chunk of a certain country's fiscal deficit. The cheers that went up when the US invaded Iraq in order to "preserve the US standard of living" ( GW's actual words if my memory is correct) still echo today. Blackwater and other military contractors cranked up the debt by making tons of money. Saddam Hussein's prediction that an invasion would unleash the "mother of all wars" turned out to prescient. Paul Keating, for one , is scathing about Australia's current acquiescence to US militarism. No wonder China is no longer happy about being a creditor to the US in the long term.
Australia's virtual silence over ongoing genocide in Gaza speaks volumes. Tying our security to racketeer policy makers doesn't sound too smart to me. Are our government's ministers wringing their hands behind closed doors? There's no evidence that they are having second thoughts.
Leaning toward self-determination for countries in our region , as well as our own, can help build resilience against climate change related disruptions, which will massively displace populations as more of the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Thanks for an outstanding analysis of the situation, including the options available to us. Sadly, we are definitely on the wrong path, as America's sidekick, and neither our present government nor the opposition show any sign of changing this.
You think the three options presented are the only ones available to us? I suppose you could say that, but I kinda feel that our options are limited by who we are.
eg. If a much higher percentage of Australians were extremely useful, more countries would want ally with us.
Thanks for this writing. I mostly concur with your arguments, but would avoid ever calling the country where I am a citizen "we". I am a member and animal of the planet Earth, but national boundaries are just an immoral construct.
I wish your article had taken the path of explaining this even further, by examining the ideas of immigration, excessive human breeding, and border control; all tied in with the problems of climate collapse and associated concerns such as war, genocide, land and other resource scarcity and hogging, religious prejudice and discrimination, and the plight of human refugees. The Australian officials do not "own" the land or the country any more than the next person.
The options that you listed for Australia's defence policy were a little interesting, but I do wonder whether the idea of "armed neutrality" could come with opposition to any form of foreign influx, such as refugees, and further crystallise the Australian authoritarian arrogance. I would strongly advocate for co-operation with sensible and peace-focused other governments, especially preferencing those closest to Australia--those who understand the idea and ideal of peace for all creatures and do not antagonise as the US generally does.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300270488/the-economic-weapon/
Nicholas Mulder's scholarly analysis of economic warfare should leave no one in doubt about sustained economic aggression that has been sold as serving the interests of peace and democracy.
One hundred plus years of military adventurism probably accounts for a sizeable chunk of a certain country's fiscal deficit. The cheers that went up when the US invaded Iraq in order to "preserve the US standard of living" ( GW's actual words if my memory is correct) still echo today. Blackwater and other military contractors cranked up the debt by making tons of money. Saddam Hussein's prediction that an invasion would unleash the "mother of all wars" turned out to prescient. Paul Keating, for one , is scathing about Australia's current acquiescence to US militarism. No wonder China is no longer happy about being a creditor to the US in the long term.
Australia's virtual silence over ongoing genocide in Gaza speaks volumes. Tying our security to racketeer policy makers doesn't sound too smart to me. Are our government's ministers wringing their hands behind closed doors? There's no evidence that they are having second thoughts.
Leaning toward self-determination for countries in our region , as well as our own, can help build resilience against climate change related disruptions, which will massively displace populations as more of the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Thanks for an outstanding analysis of the situation, including the options available to us. Sadly, we are definitely on the wrong path, as America's sidekick, and neither our present government nor the opposition show any sign of changing this.
Carolyn
You think the three options presented are the only ones available to us? I suppose you could say that, but I kinda feel that our options are limited by who we are.
eg. If a much higher percentage of Australians were extremely useful, more countries would want ally with us.
Thanks for this writing. I mostly concur with your arguments, but would avoid ever calling the country where I am a citizen "we". I am a member and animal of the planet Earth, but national boundaries are just an immoral construct.
I wish your article had taken the path of explaining this even further, by examining the ideas of immigration, excessive human breeding, and border control; all tied in with the problems of climate collapse and associated concerns such as war, genocide, land and other resource scarcity and hogging, religious prejudice and discrimination, and the plight of human refugees. The Australian officials do not "own" the land or the country any more than the next person.
The options that you listed for Australia's defence policy were a little interesting, but I do wonder whether the idea of "armed neutrality" could come with opposition to any form of foreign influx, such as refugees, and further crystallise the Australian authoritarian arrogance. I would strongly advocate for co-operation with sensible and peace-focused other governments, especially preferencing those closest to Australia--those who understand the idea and ideal of peace for all creatures and do not antagonise as the US generally does.
Ok...good luck.
>> fairly sure that it will go straight in the bin.
If the ANU is going to ignore you, why waste your time with them?
In 2015, when the Federal Parliament had an inquiry into soldier's mental health, they were happy to give you a microphone and lots of time to talk.
ie. Why not engage with people who genuinely want to engage?