What about Joe?

[willedoo]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Wille - Yes - some of it is a power demo - but as I mention, often there is more than meets the eye. Some of this would have been intelligence gathering, for example, how fast his "enemies" can mobilise, and how they mobilise which will feed into the tactical strategies they concoct.

That's true. In all this, Putin has learned how far the US and NATO will go in their response. Western supply of arms and equipment would make the conquest of Ukraine harder, but wouldn't change the ultimate outcome - that Russia would prevail in any fight between the two countries. He now knows that the US and NATO will not fight on Ukrainian soil. In other words, he's been told he can have Ukraine if he's prepared to cop the severest sanctions yet. So for Vladimir, it comes back to cost vs benefit. He already knows how depleted NATO forces are these days, and their lack of actual battle readiness and mobility. But now he knows the West's red line. It's a red line he's been given the nod to cross if he wants to pay the financial cost.

[red750]

[Old Koreelah]

A totally US-centric response, ignoring the rights and aspirations of everyone else.

 

Chamberlain weak? Maybe, but he bought Britain two precious years to prepare for the war he knew was inevitable. He used that time wisely to build up the war-fighting infrastructure that Churchill depended on.

 

These critics are big on tough talk, but short on details about how Biden should respond. Another thing these hawks have in common: they know they won’t be sent to fight, and their kids are probably quite safe as well. 

[nomadpete]

Typical chain rattler.

 

He accuses Biden of being too weak to initiate negotiations with Russia and China. Then quotes Churchill's

'...can't negotiate with a lion when your head is in the lion's mouth'.

 

So, he is actually saying Biden cannot negotiate peace anyhow, so how is this bloke suggesting Biden should show strength to these lions? Is he implying that military action by US will bring peace?

 

Nuts !

Edited March 16, 2022 by nomadpete

[willedoo]

Maybe the US is losing it's grip. There's reports that Saudi Arabia is actively talking to China about selling them oil for payment in Yuan. The Saudis have traded oil exclusively in dollars since 1974 in return for security guarantees. I think it was Nixon who set that up. Oil sales to China account for more than a quarter of Saudi oil, so that's a concern for the dollar. Currently 80% of global oil sales are transacted in dollars. It makes you think that in the future when the world transitions away from hydrocarbons, a lot of present day power structures will change.

 

 

[nomadpete]

We, the consumers, must take a large slice of blame for China's great success.

Our basic greed and shortsighted lust for buying everything for the lowest price is what has destroyed our manufacturing industries. Thus we handed the profits gained from value adding, to another country, to their great benefit.

 

I expect our nation's leaders to act in the best interests of our nation. I expect that our national interests come first. That is what they are elected (and paid) to do. Likewise, China's government acts primarily in the interests of china. It is in their interest to maximise the income from international trade. We are now over a barrel because in our rush for cheaper products, we have not attended to keeping a second source of supply of anything. So we no longer have any bargaining power. Competition ceases to work, and our cheaper prices disappear and perhaps even the products themselves can vanish if our country fails to please our sole supplier. 

We have made ourselves vulnerable.

[old man emu]

24 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Our basic greed and short-sighted lust for buying everything for the lowest price is what has destroyed our manufacturing industries. Thus we handed the profits gained from value adding, to another country, to their great benefit. We are now over a barrel because in our rush for cheaper products, we have not attended to keeping a second source of supply of anything. 

Couldn't agree more.

By simply gathering raw materials and sending them to other Nations to use to make things, we show that we haven't moved from the colonial economy of the 19th Century. Britain is no longer controlling our colonial economy, Asia is. Those who seek Australia to be independent of the monarchical system had better be prepared to pour billions into a rapid transition from an extractive economy to a manufacturing economy before we break the bond. But that entails lower investment returns during the building phase, and the Rich won't accept a short term slowing of income in order to obtain a greater income in the future.

 

We have sat back eating the lotus plant and watched those poor miserable souls in China and India build their Nations into manufacturing powerhouses in the first quarter of the 21st Century. 

 

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA!

[Yenn]

Not only have we done as Nomad and OME have pointed out, we have also sold primary products to others for less than Australian can buy them here.

Gas is sold overseas and too expensive to use here to owner a power station.

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

Rich won't accept a short term slowing of income in order to obtain a greater income in the future.

Therein lies the business and political side of our decline. For instance, Japan advanced rapidly after WW2 largely because of a culture that looks long term. Investors, workers and managers were all prepared to do it tough in their own lifetime, in order to achieve prosperity (mostly through manufacturing) for their children and grandchildren. I have heard this culture referred to as 'the asian mind game'. Unfortunately the culture of the 'west' is guided by instant gratification, and forward planning revolves around the 3 year election cycle.

 

I have yet to hear an Australian or US politician announce a rolling ten year plan such as china has.

Edited March 16, 2022 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

The USSR and China were able to make plans for a five year or more period because there was a belief that the political control of them would remain constant over those years. The belief might not have been so strong in Japan, but then you bring in the cultural aspect of honouring the ancestors and planning for the descendants.

 

Western democracies suffer from the threat of loss of political control. Everything is predicated on holding or gaining parliamentary seats at the next election.  That's why electioneering is marked by promises of dolling out money for projects that are not linked to any national goals. Even when one Party remains in power over several election cycles, there is hardly thought given to projects that require involvement over several cycles, unless the project involves infrastructure. 

 

I smirk when I hear a political leader announce an infrastructure project and include, "this project will create [ number of jobs]". You can't take an unemployed, unskilled person off the dole queue and expect them to operate heavy machinery or repair it. The people who can do that have been employed in the business for a long time. When an infrastructure project "creates jobs", it's not new employment. It's relocating employees.

 

We have an educated population. Maybe not everyone is a Rhodes Scholar, but the majority can read and write and be taught the skills necessary for tasks that take our raw materials and turn them into valuable commodities. We've shown we can do it. Look back at WWII. In 1939, our manufacturing was fairly basic, but by 1945, we had established manufacturing and taught manufacturing skills to previously non-skilled people so that we were producing complex devices. Why? One reason was that our usual suppliers - Britain, Canada and other Empire countries - were flat out either defending themselves, or helping to supply the tools to help Britain. Australia and New Zealand were at the arse-end of the supply routes.

 

I suppose another reason that we got a manufacturing base established so quickly is that we were making things used to defend the property of the Rich.

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

8 hours ago, red750 said:

 

This bloke hasn't even done his research. Churchill said "You cannot negotiate with a TIGER when your head us in its mouth" not a lion. An old reds under the bed mentality. No-one had Nuclear weapons in 1939. Putins stability is such that the West cannot take the gamble he won't use them and start WW3 which would guarantee mutually assured destruction and at least a billion deaths according to experts. The long term effects would mean curtains for the planet.

[nomadpete]

Good point, KG.

 

However, if Putin (or anybody else) lobs a nuclear cracker over the fence, at least it would stop everyone fretting about global warming

Edited March 16, 2022 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

OME. That's true. It is easier to make a long term plan if there is long term stability in a country.

I suspect that in our overpopulated world, the Russian and Chinese authoritarian systems have been able to plan ahead in a way that the western democracies cannot hope to match.

[pmccarthy]

Gaiea is self regulating. If she needs to reduce the human population, then it will happen. Perhaps Putin is the instrument.

[old man emu]

Thanks for one more snippet of trivia to add to the rest.

 

In Greek mythology, Gaia is the personification of the Earth[4] and one of the Greek primordial deities. Gaia is the ancestral mother—sometimes parthenogenic—of all life. But don't mess with her as Uranus did. 

 

As each of her children were born, Uranus hid them in a secret place within Gaia, causing her great pain. So Gaia devised a plan. She created a grey flint (or adamantine) sickle. And Cronus, the wily, youngest and most terrible of her children, and who hated his lusty sire, used the sickle to castrate his father Uranus as he approached his mother, Gaia, to have sex with her.

[nomadpete]

The greek gods and godesses were all aflicted with all the weaknessess and foibles of human frailty.

 

Therefore Gaia might have jaelousy and greed and shortsightedness enough to allow her own destruction.

 

I see no hope from Gaia.

 

Please post a better glimmer of hope for us.

[willedoo]

This is a cut and paste of something I saw regarding Biden:

 

People who are older than Joe Biden:

- Harrison Ford (just made anther Indiana Jones movie)

- Paul McCartney (touring around the world)

- Patrick Stewart (still playing Captain Picard)

- Mel Brooks (producing a new TV series)

We don't need to hear about Biden's age, thanks!

[red750]

Dick Van Dyke will make his soap opera debut on Days Of Our Lives.

 

The 97-year-old is set to appear as a guest star on a forthcoming episode of the long-running series.

 

[onetrack]

But do any of them have the responsibility of deciding whether to start WW3 or not, by pressing the Big Red Button? Will Joe even remember where he put the briefcase with the secret Nuke codes?? 

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

But do any of them have the responsibility of deciding whether to start WW3 or not, by pressing the Big Red Button? Will Joe even remember where he put the briefcase with the secret Nuke codes?? 

He doesn’t have to; there’s always a military person to carry it.

Interesting story from the Clinton years, when the threat of Soviet attack had evaporated:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11591213

[Bruce Tuncks]

I agree that the yanks stuffed up in Afghanistan and Vietnam. But they did good with germany and Japan after ww2. Much better than the poms did after ww1, setting the stage up for Hitler and Stalin. I dunno if the poms have learned, but the yanks sure did and just look at Germany and Japan today.

Did Australia have any influence?  I doubt it, but if they did I hope it was on the side of the yanks after ww2.

[spacesailor]

The Poms Lost that ww2. Just look at Germany & Japan ,

With their American help , And England's repatriation payments ,

That lasted into the 1950 's .

Who needs enemies ! With allies like that .

 .

spacesailor

Edited April 30, 2023 by spacesailor

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Much better than the poms did after ww1, setting the stage up for Hitler and Stalin

If you look into it, it was the French who demanded the punitive measures against Germany after WWI. It was payback for the 1870 war between France and Germany. The USA tried to broker more acceptable restitution from Germany, but the French refused. They reckoned that too much French blood had been spilled, and they wanted more than their pound of flesh. The French also messed up things in those places that were the Ottoman Empire. 

 

As for the Yanks and Stalin, that's a horse of a different colour. The Russians were too busy establishing their new politico/economic system. And their human losses were mostly due to the actions of their aristocracy, so the Russians settled their anger by knocking  off the aristocrats. Of course, as soon as there is a vacuum in the ranks of leadership, the toughs get going. 

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I agree that the yanks stuffed up in Afghanistan and Vietnam. But they did good with germany and Japan after ww2. Much better than the poms did after ww1, setting the stage up for Hitler and Stalin. I dunno if the poms have learned, but the yanks sure did and just look at Germany and Japan today.

Did Australia have any influence?  I doubt it, but if they did I hope it was on the side of the yanks after ww2.

Australia’s PM Billy Hughes was a significant cause of WWII.

At the 1919 Versailles peace conference he was one of the most vociferous supporters of forcing Germany to pay reparations, which America’s Woodrow Wilson was dead against.

Gemany’s economy was already a basket case, so this added to the grievances that Hitler fed off in his rise to power.

 

But wait, there’s more! Billy Hughes also did his bit to cause the Pacific War. 
After helping the Allied nations during the Great War, Japan asked to be treated as an equal to European powers. Billy Hughes steadfastly refused, causing the Japanese envoys to walk out of the League of Nations.

At home, the peace-makers were humiliated and lost power as the Hawks gained control of Japan’s government. Their slide towards war was thus sealed.

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

But do any of them have the responsibility of deciding whether to start WW3 or not, by pressing the Big Red Button? Will Joe even remember where he put the briefcase with the secret Nuke codes?? 

 

Again - look at the alternative.  Joe with full blown dementia would be a better bet than the orange baby.