Hugs won't fix your government's Islamophobia, ScoMo.

If a lie is half-way around the world before the truth can…

Peace Be Upon All

By Khaled-Oula ElomarThis is what I had to experience Thursday night 21st…

The NSW Result, Mark Latham And Why This…

Ok, first things first. I'm not advising that anyone bet on politics,…

What's that smell?

For two years from May 1987 Tony Fitzgerald QC turned a spotlight and…

Disinviting Jordan Peterson: The Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge…

He has sent so many cliques and groups into titters of anger,…

Let’s talk about jobs and how the baby…

A few days ago, the monthly Labour Force survey for February was…

Armageddon

By RosemaryJ36  Recently I am beginning to understand why people become so frustrated…

NSW State Election: Let the Economic Debate About…

By Denis Bright  Premier Berejiklian has confounded the final pre-election Newspoll to achieve…

«
»
Facebook

How will it end?

Conclusion

Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned factors, it should be assumed that China will revert to the use of maximum force and the complete subjugation of Taiwan—beyond the war of rivalry that is already taking place—should its resistance to the unification process be seen as taking ‘too long.’ Conclusively and from an historical perspective, there is no evidence-base within this thesis that a nation-state which has undergone an industrial revolution, has a (relatively) harmonious domestic populace, has sought peace in the pursuit of their irredentist policies. All have expanded beyond their borders and used violence when and where necessary. China is currently displaying normative behaviours and strategies from those that have gone before and moreover, Taiwan needs to accept the historical reality of hostile actions being part of irredentist policies with the intention of follow up kinetic action being a common occurrence. The evidence on which this is historically premised and with the absolute power in the first instance being followed by the subjugated in the second (and in no particular order) is inherent in the following examples of conquest through violence,

  • Japan – China, Korea and Southeast Asia;
  • Spain – South Americas;
  • Portugal – West Africa and Timor-Leste;
  • England – Africa, Afghanistan, Australia, China, Ireland and India;
  • France – Indochina and Oceania;
  • Germany – Western Europe, Russia and the Mediterranean region;
  • US – Philippines, Central Americas, Diego Garcia, Hawaii, Indochina, Japan;
  • Netherlands – Indonesia; and
  • USSR – East Berlin, Hungary and Yugoslavia.[1]

The qualified danger and from a war-making perspective it should be noted and comprehensively understood by the Taiwanese government that throughout the build-up and eventual use of deliberate violent actions China will consider its engagement against Taiwan to comprise a regional mid-intensity conflict, although it will have a ‘total war attitude’ to the outcome. This attitude and military stance will be due to the aforementioned commitments to a total war and are present in the evidence and reality that as the war ‘drags on’ the stakes for the CCP will become higher. This perspective should be emphatically understood. For Taiwan, a war of this type will comprise a slog-of-attrition in a fortress environment. The destruction that will be wrought will be dependent upon whether China upgrades or retards its steel-to-target consistencies and over time whether there is dedicated and persistent politico or military interventions of others and moreover, the level of destruction will also remain dependent upon the politico-parameters—to what extent they will get involved and the subsequent ceasefire demands—of others. In simpler terms, as the kinetic actions of the war continue any diminishing of ferocity will have to involve other actors or institutional representatives. This may include but not be limited to the presence of a navy (or navies) under ASEAN, EU, NATO, or UN guidance—there will be some US presence although the evidence that has been presented suggests that it will not be a major actor as increasing isolationism will become a mainstay of US foreign policy.

Whilst the engagement of other actors will temper China’s ambition to take Taiwan they will not deter China and only be instrumental in moderating the ferocity of the war. China will ‘stay the course.’ Although the presence of another capable force or forces will cause friction with China, as it will observe the presence of other actors as tantamount to deterring its inherent Treaty rights and responsibilities, it will however, only be through such a prism that a ‘shooting war’ will be moderated. The problem for Taiwan will be that upon an act of war taking place there will not be immediate intervention on the part of other actors. It is a germane yet necessary point to make that in a globalised world, nation-states must take all other relevant actors and their concomitant power-stakes into account, and in a much more substantive way as the competitive environment is much more robust and potentially conflictual than when a single hegemon ruled.[2]

To be certain, Taiwan will not be able to sustain the high-functioning and robust country that it is in 2018, under the constraints of a blockade; or when faced with the reality and actuality of intermittent high-intensity raids—Japan during WWII is testament to this practice and its dire outcomes, as is the Palestinian territories under Israeli dominance in the post-WWII era, and in more contemporary times Syria in its war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria exogenous militia. Whilst the intensity and magnitude of any kinetic action may ebb and flow depending on politico-negotiations and military ramifications, the persistence and necessity to take Taiwan by China will remain omnipresent, and will not diminish over time. Should the situation drag out until the end of the third decade of the twenty-first century the CCP will, without doubt, exercise a tactical invasion by the PLA; as at this point in time the politico-irenic solutions will have been removed; Taiwan will have the majority of its infrastructure disabled; and the ROC military will be exhausted. Albeit this scenario is unlikely to eventuate as there would be pressures from within ASEAN, EU, the NATO and the UNSC which would instigate a renewed negotiations the part of the CCP. There would if the notion of an invasion were to become truly manifest, be a last-resort compulsion to bring the kinetic phase of a Taiwan-China war to an end. The possibility of an invasion would become dominant in the UNGA as the escalation of a broader regional conflict would have become a near-happening reality.

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned, and due to the structure of Taiwanese society there would also have been political ramifications in its domestic environment. An end to the war would be sought from within. The end to a war would have evolved and as the society is highly-educated and cosmopolitan, and as this status is a comprehensive inculcation, an end to the war would have become paramount as it took its collective toll on Taiwanese society. Ultimately it is a germane yet necessary point to make that due to the political structural functionalism of Taiwan—that of being a liberal-democracy—it is dependent upon each voting individual and the collectives therein. The normative assembly of voters’ would, as time went on, either expand upon or diminish its independence-orientation and as the war continued the dedication to independence would be at the behest of the voting public. Notwithstanding, this factor small groups are generated in societies that go to war—as per the Russian example—and Taiwan would be no different, although such an occurrence would be magnified in their liberal-democracy. In simpler terms, there would be societal disruption as those that did not want the war would form protest movements which would have to be contended with by the government. Nevertheless, China is unwavering in its determination to unify its territories and this should be thoroughly understood by Taiwan. To wit, the notion that for the CCP the bringing of Taiwan into the fold of rejuvenating the Middle Kingdom to its former grand status is the ultimate aim and moreover, it is the generational and doctrinal veracity that drives the motivation. To be sure, this thesis is premised on the ‘nascent phase’ of pax-Sino and within the normative structures of ‘rising’ which have been alluded to, the premise of China as a nation-state continually partaking in the process will remain a continuum. In simpler term, China will persist with unification to whatever point that mainstay requires, up to, and including the destruction of Taiwan.

Therefore, China will continue its ascendancy as those before it have done and whilst there may be degrees of plateauing in the process, they will eventually be usurped by further growth. This is the very ‘nature’ of ascendancy and the underpinning of ‘pax. Thus, whether it be a series of skirmishes, a conflict, a limited war or a total war in China’s pursuant retrocession of Taiwan, and although problems will be posed for China in the process of launching and sustaining a war, China will remain from the outset determined the process will take place as a pivotal point in its movement toward pax-Sino. If it takes a war for China to retake Taiwan, the Taiwanese people should be under no illusion that war will become a reality through the prism of the ‘pause an effect’ programme and strategy that has been alluded to in the thesis. The war, this thesis argues and the ‘pause’ phases will be launched in 2031 as all of the aforementioned necessary categories will be in place, and should Taiwan show no sign of engaging in a unification-driven dialogue, a kinetic ‘shooting war’ exchange will commence at the latest chronological point of 2035. This will be due to the approaching of another election phase in Taiwan; of 2049 being chronologically closer; and of the window of opportunity offered having stalled or been ignored.

There have been many nuanced applications reviewed and examined in this thesis and whilst the numerous cogent arguments have been analysed, the fact remains in the inexact science of preponderance-forecasting in contemporary times—the twentieth century and beyond—there is approximately 25 years before a nation-state extends beyond its ‘nascent phase’[3] of preponderance. The end result is the placement of irredentism comes to the fore; and the nation-state acts upon its historic antecedents and thus, exercises its claims with more vigorous politico-platforms which are inevitably linked to suasion-through-force. As stipulated, by 2031 China will have been in its ‘nascent phase’ for approximately 35 years and will be about to enter a greater sphere-of-influence and extend its preponderance tendencies from that of incremental to exponential. Taiwan should not be distracted by any pretence that it will not be at the forefront of China’s politico-aggrandisement; and military forthrightness. Due to these two factors, the government of Taiwan should, by 2031, adjust its policies accordingly and align its parameters to advantageous negotiations, or prepare for a long-term war-of-attrition, and a blockade that is accompanied by a punishment phase strategy of operations. The prescribed action of the window of opportunity will be delivered on or about 2031, and whilst there is a chance that it will be elevated into a series of kinetic actions immediately, or after only a chronologically short phase, it remains the contention of this thesis that it is unlikely as China will want the ‘window’ to produce favourable results toward peaceful reunification. This stipulated, between 2031 and 2035, China’s attitude to unification will become progressively more sclerotic. Should there be no progress toward unification having been made, the ‘pause’ factor in the ascribed ‘pause and effect’ analogy will be discarded, and according to the evidence-base presented a kinetic exchange cum shooting war will take place at the latest date of 2035.

Previous instalment … China and its approach to war

 

[1] The countries mentioned are by no means a comprehensive list of the aggressor and the subdued and are only used in order to highlight the point of expansionism and of directly linking the concept to the reality of violent actions extramural to the dominant entity (cum monarchy, dictator or nation-state). A more extensive extrapolation could include the micro-states of Italy, the Crusades, Roman Empire and numerous other republics, institutions and feudal estates. It should be understood that the industrial revolution referred to is driven by inventiveness and science and technology, particularly those of war-making—the manufacture and distribution of weapons and the support infrastructure. Other factors that may be included in the peripheral though necessary part of advancement should be the allegiance components of organised militias and other loyal forces.

[2] What is meant by this statement for instance is, Vietnam, Malaysia and Japan and Russia, (to mention only four) have to take into account the strategic positions of each other as part of the A-P region in a more nuanced way, whereas in the 1990s – (early) twenty-first century, a US-focus would have been paramount as it was the hegemon.

[3] Nation-states reverting to war in order to apply their irredentist policies through war can be loosely traced to approximately 25 – 30 years after an industrial revolution. Japan after winning the Japan-Russo War would invade Manchuria approximately 30 years later, the US after the winning of the Korean War would venture in earnest into Vietnam 20 – through 25 years later, France after being decimated in WWI would venture into Indochina 30 years later. There are many more examples that can be attributed and measured in this way. This thesis merely recognises a loose pattern and the evidence has been used to supplement the argument, and acknowledges only that whilst a pattern does exist much more erudite analysis is needed.

Strobe Driver completed his PhD in war studies in 2011 and since then has written extensively on war, terrorism, Asia-Pacific security, the ‘rise of China,’ and issues within Australian domestic politics. Strobe is a recipient of Taiwan Fellowship 2018, MOFA, Taiwan, ROC, and is an adjunct researcher at Federation University.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

12 comments

Login here Register here
  1. mark delmege

    ‘Yugoslavia’ that’s not my understanding of history. see #1
    I guess the rest of the articles represent some sort of a quid pro quo for someone receiving payment from the Taiwan government.

  2. Alcibiades

    Thank Dog this apologia & your offensive second rate obsequious derivative propaganda has come to an end.

    A consistent failure throughout to even get basic historical & legal facts right from start to finish.

    You demonstrate throughout no understanding of tactics, operations nor strategy, and your partisan commentary & narrative re geo-politics is amongst the most omission filled, motive and context bereft one has had the displeasure to encounter.

    Nations States military planning staffs & intelligence agencies have great difficulty with even approximately predicting the likelihood of a particular eventuality only a decade in advance. Yet you arrogate to yourself the certain conviction of the specificity of a Chinese imposed War, a ‘Total War’, ~12-16 years in advance ?

    Disgraceful.

    This may include but not be limited to the presence of a navy (or navies) under ASEAN, EU, NATO, or UN guidance—there will be some US presence although the evidence that has been presented suggests that it will not be a major actor as increasing isolationism will become a mainstay of US foreign policy.

    Ludicrous.

    The rogue Chinese province of Taiwan is not a sovereign nation, not even a country, not legally recognised as such by the UNGA, the UN or the UNSC, not even by the US. It has not even Observer status at the UN, Palestine does though. Yet, given a failure of EU, NATO (in the farkin Taiwan Strait ?!), US or the UN to actively intervene let alone militarily when the population of Crimea voted to rejoin the Russian Federation, you boldly assert fleets from the above and even ASEAN will come to the rogue Taiwan provinces defence ?!

    That the limited tendency toward isolationism currently by the US under the nativist Trump regime will become entrenched, a mainstay into the far future ?

    Do you come to these fanciful utterly unsound speculative assertions by reading chickens entrails or by smoking too much weed, hm ?

    Your conclusion appears to be pre-ordained, and all that came before deliberately, though amateurishly transparently, crafted to funnel into, and only, that said conclusion.

    Do you still assert the Vietnam War was fought in the Sth only ? Bollocks.

    Laughable dross.

  3. Phil.

    Great read. For mine, one does not need a ‘ Master Of International Study ‘ to work out where China is headed. Taiwan will be the litmus for their move eventually on Australia. They will by necessity need their own ‘ Lebensraum ‘ The race will be on between China and Indonesia. Both these countries are grossly overpopulated and both drowning in their own excreta. Australia is referred to by the Chinese as the ‘ Golden Mountains ‘ and for good reason. If and when the sleeping giant gets on the move, nothing will stop them. I just pray the half wit Trump is impeached soon, being in my dotage I would like a few more years with my grandkids.

  4. Strobe Driver

    Wow!!! Who’d a thunk my mini-thesis could have inspired so much ‘word action.’ And as has been my wont throughout I do get the right of reply. Just a few things first: it was an independent assessment, and the Taiwanese government and its associates (including the MOFA) did not intervene in any way beyond paying me a stipend for the Fellowship.

    Alciibiades seems to of course, to have been the most wanton and critical of my ‘insights.’ With regard to the most recent: the Western ‘intelligence agencies’ (which is a dichotomy in and of itself), did not foresee the fall of the USSR, with all of the information they had at hand, so I don’t have any problems with my evidence-base. And just one small thing, I haven’t necessarily predicted a Total War per se, I have said it may degenerate to being one, but more importantly, I have stated if China goes to war with Taiwan, it will have a ‘total war attitude’ to the clash, note the subtle difference. And as for the war in Vietnam, there was an air-war in the North of the country (Viet) and a ground-, nautical-, and air-war in the south of the country (Nam), although the latter two much less tactically. And with regard to navies, I had several conversations with NATO officials and I was not told that NATO would not intervene, in a war, and I had conversations with ASEAN officials and to be sure, they are all very conscious of the enlarged role they will have to take should a war break out.

    And as for my bold ‘assertions,’ and the shortcomings of them – my useless predictions etc, which unfortunately as a war and conflict researcher I have to make as I can’t ignore evidence; and where it takes me. I wrote an article last year which stated the DPRK And the US would not go to war in the near future for many reasons (the article can be traced through the AIMN and E-IR websites), and I used an evidence base for that, and hey presto, no war –this is when many TV commentators’ were saying war was imminent etc. All of this said, I, nonetheless, look forward to you posting on the AIMN a completed thesis of, and on, Asia-Pacific security so that I can trawl through it and perhaps offer a comment or two. Just remember, when you post the thesis you have to be ‘tough enough’ to deal with the replies, both good and bad.

    A final analogy with regard to an evidence-base, in 1922, Roosevelt stated to the US’ Foreign Minister Butt, that he knew (due to the appalling treatment of Japan over the previous 50+ years by the US and the West), that Japan would eventually attack America, he just didn’t know ‘when.’ ( I can cite this if anyone needs). This can be applied to both Taiwan – China and Australia – China relations and the obsequiousness shown to US remits in the post-WWII era. The point being Roosevelt was simply stating this on the back of where the evidence ‘took him.’ A war will happen unless attitudes change — it’s just a matter of ‘when.’

  5. Alcibiades

    Oh yes of course, not even the possibility of the perception of bias, hm ?

    Your false argument re the inability of even State actors, with national level resources, and disparagement of Intelligence services & agencies to predict events even one year in advance (fall of the Soviet Union), is in fact supportive of my challenge to your fictional specific predictions ~12-16 years in the future.

    You, as an individual ‘researcher’ with no military service experience, no actual experience of military conflict let alone actual war, no experience in an intelligence service or agency, at even the basic combat tactictal, operational, let alone strategic level, arrogate to yourself the wisdom and what you describe as ‘insights’, beyond said professional services & analysts formally acknowledge they are capable of, because you are a ‘researcher’ under the patronage of Taiwan ?

    You demonstrate you do not even understand the meaning of the words tactics or tactical re War. Nor understand what operations comprise let alone strategy.

    Again, re the Vietnam War you are simply re-stating absurd falsities. Laos ? Cambodia ? Coastal raids & mining of the Norths coastline & harbours, sustained SF raids and operations & massive strategic bombing campaigns in the North, the strategic airborne chemical deforestation support of strategic war objectives in North & South Vietnam and inside the borders of Laos & Cambodia, comply with your unretracted, and repeated false claim … ‘the Vietnam War was only fought in the Sth‘ ?!

    You had several conversations and assert you were not told NATO would ‘not’ intervene in your pulp fiction war scenario ~12-16 years in the future in the Taiwan Strait ? Are you serious ? Beyond belief.

    Did NATO, or the EU come to Ukraines aid post the US instigated coup, by force of arms ? No.

    Did NATO, or the EU come to aid Georgia by force of arms in the wake of its initiation of aggressive war against it’s rogue provinces and deliberate targeting of OCSE peacekeepers ? No.

    You routinely ignore & misrepresnt that which does support your chosen ‘narrative’.

    Wow ! You predicted the DPRK would not go to War last year when the media propagandists and war boosters were claiming otherwise ? A little history, it’s been ~66 years since the ceasefire … what puerile drivel.

    Your false final analogy is further evidence of flawed thought, reasoning and argument.

    The rogue Chinese province of Taiwan, and it’s relations since 1949 with the PRC cannot be equated with the mistreatment of Japan by the expansionist US Empire, leading to the militarist Japanese Empire resorting to total War. Where is the parallel ? Do you comprehend that apples are not oranges ? Yet more irrelevant dross and false flawed analogy.

    It would be the equivalent of comparing the boastful semi-literate ignorant man-child Donald Trump to you. On second thoughts …

    Respectfully suggest, if you have to defend this ‘mini-thesis’ by resorting to timidly referencing/boasting of your previous works to defend it, rather than have it stand on its own merit … well, need one say more.

    When do you anticipate submitting your ‘mini-thesis’ for peer review, warts n all, to acknowledged independent expert review ?

    Until then, respectfully, it’s an article, an opinion piece passing itself off as profound ‘analysis’.

  6. Andreas Bimba

    Strobe’s conclusion that China will eventually militarily invade Taiwan and even destroy that nation in the process is shared by many.

    As I see it Taiwan has three choices:

    (a). Accept a ‘Hong Kong type’ solution of negotiated limited autonomy but absolute rule by China. Far from ideal but probably still tolerable for the vast majority of Taiwan’s residents. Negotiations can still continue to explore and detail this option.

    (b). Continue as now with a deteriorating balance of economic and military power which at some point will probably end in invasion, even if the first or second attempt fails.

    (c). Delay the possibility of successful blockade or invasion for long enough that China evolves into a less authoritarian state that no longer seeks unification by military means. To achieve this Taiwan would need to be self sufficient in all necessities so as to withstand an indefinite blockade and maintain an advanced military that can repulse a conventional forces invasion. This is not as challenging a task as many imagine as large seaborne or airborne invasions are extremely risky and difficult without the backup of a land based invasion; and a much smaller power can deter a much larger power. The Israel-Muslim world face-off is an example of successful military and political deterrence. Taiwan even has the technical resources and potential to maintain technological parity in most key military areas with China. Even if the US at some point decides not to get directly involved during a military conflict between China and Taiwan, the US will probably still try to increase the costs to China in some of the myriad of ways that the US has available which adds to deterrence. The real question for this scenario is will China eventually become some sort of liberal democracy that no longer wants to incorporate Taiwan by military means and will China ever resort to weapons of mass destruction before this transition?

  7. Phil.

    While the West pontificates the intentions of China, the island building programme goes on unabated in the South China Sea. It is no secret Australia monitors Chinese and Indonesian military radio communications 24/7. Of course the Chinese and Indonesians could well be transmitting Asian cooking tips in code who knows . It is of no coincidence Australia is slowly moving its air power such as it is into the north of the continent. Darwin now having a large contingent of American troops and other logistics has never ever been properly explained to the Australian people costs of which, remain secret. Anything going on that should worry us, will naturally as per usual, be covered up by our compliant treacherous media. Of course any of the honest ones are either labelled communists or in extreme cases killed, who could forget the ‘ Balboa Five ‘ and Australia’s obscene cover up?

    I will never forget my great epiphany into the reality of contempt held for its citizens, by government and its enablers in the media. Whilst a teenager living in Adelaide, my parents received a telegram from Channel Nine that my brother who was serving in Vietnam at the time, would be sending a Xmas message and be interviewed by a journalist. Cutting a long story short, the whole interview was all staged with the questions and answers already written out. The added touch was handing my brother a set of water ski’s, the interview took place on a beach. My brother had never been skiing in his life. Small potatoes in the scheme of things however, a wake call to one family. We will never really know what is going on, such opinions and more opinion, and six bucks, buys you a cup of coffee. That’s this week anyway.

  8. Alcibiades

    Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned factors, it should be assumed that China will revert to the use of maximum force and the complete subjugation of Taiwan—beyond the war of rivalry that is already taking place—should its resistance to the unification process be seen as taking ‘too long.’ Conclusively and from an historical perspective, there is no evidence-base within this thesis …

    Be seen as taking too long ? It has been ~70 years since the Chinese province of Taiwan was seized & occupied by the defeated & rejected remnants of the Kuomintang military forces, and the illegitimate unrecognised defeated ‘Government-in-exile’ of the KMT under the puppet governments patron & protector the US.

    Maybe yet another 70 years would not be considered, too long ? After all the Chinese patiently waited 99 years for the expiration of one of its imposed by right & might of arms Unequal Treaties ‘lease’ without any recourse to violent force whatsoever, hm ?

    How about 99-140 years for the rogue Chinese province of Taiwan too, re eventual unification hm ? There’s a factual non violent relevant precedent you alternately ignore the context of or misrepresent, hm ?

    China demonstrably takes … the long view …

    Oh, cannot seem to find mention anywhere in your ‘objective’, ‘evidence-based thesis’, considering ‘all factors’, that the now no longer dominant KMT political party has called for repeatedly for re-unification with China in modern times(IIRC). Have/did they ? Why is that not relevant ? Did you omit to ‘conversations’, which you have referred to taking place in Taiwan, with the modern KMTs political representatives ? If not, why not ?

    There is no evidence-base within this thesis … one will agree with that, if it’s changed, in isolation, to : … There is little credible evidence-base within this thesis, perhaps ?

    The evidence on which this is historically premised and with the absolute power in the first instance being followed by the subjugated in the second (and in no particular order) is inherent in the following examples of conquest through violence, …

    When was East Berlin (given the use of that descriptor, post WWII) the subject of conquest via violent force of arms by the USSR, subjugated by such you claim ?

    There was for a period a non-conflict blockade of East Berlin (I am a Hamburger! JFK) akin to the US blockade (Quarantine?) of Cuba during the Cuban Missie crisis though … also a non violent conflict. hm ?

    When was Yugoslavia the subject of conquest via violent force of arms by the USSR, & subjugated, such you claim ?

    Extra-ordinary or abherrant claims require extra-ordinary corroboration and proven primary source references, within a claimed credible ‘mini-thesis’ analysis, do they not ?

    Links please ?

    Credibility … within this thesis … yeah/nah.

  9. Alcibiades

    Phil

    Even the conscription lottery was rigged throughout. EX Deputy PM Tim Fischer wrote a detailed researched analysis on it, using primary archived documants. Also a Viet Vet. Tho a Nat, bloody well good on ‘im.

    Why is it every bloody day one or another of the Corporate MSM spews forth whispering propaganda re the Chinese, Huwaei, cyber-hackers, in the most unsubstantiated way, with zero proof/evidence,,using unattributed/anonymous sources. Same for the Russian Federation and others nations deemed … ‘evil’.

    If so, what the hell are the NSA, GCHQ, ASD & Canadas & NZ (can’t recall the relevant acronym OTTOMH) spying/surveillance/cyber-hacking agencies doing with the gargantuan global means, facilities, manpower & resources they have at their disposal since WWII, let alone untold $100’s of Billions ?

    Curiously, we never hear of these ‘White Knights’ doing anything naughty against other sovereign nations unless it’s via courageous whistleblowers exposing unlawful, unconstitutional criminal acts. Where such are thence unremittingly crushed by the State.

    Hm, cannot quite put my finger on it, but, something seems a tad askew … am not averse to the public in a Democracy(?) being treated as human mushrooms, as long as said public are not kept in the dark & fed copious quantities of shit.

  10. Phil.

    Alcibiades’

    ‘ Even the conscription lottery was rigged throughout. EX Deputy PM Tim Fischer wrote a detailed researched analysis on it, using primary archived documants. Also a Viet Vet. Tho a Nat, bloody well good on ‘im.’

    Indeed. Who could forget Normie Rowe? Although in his case being a right winger, they had a willing participant. The mans poster child for our participation in the war. I will never forget the right wing propaganda at the time, not just Reds in our beds but North Vietnamese tanks in the streets of our cities. Looking back on it and having a lot more experience of the world, the fools then are no different to the fools now. The Gung Ho cretins in our suburbs then as now, have in the main never fired a shot in anger.

    As an aside my brother missed out on the call up he was a volunteer. My own father a veteran of the beaches of Normandie his brother in Changi both their experiences known to my brother. When dad found out he volunteered for Vietnam, he went absolutely Troppo. Dad told him the first time you smell a mixture of blood and shit you’ll wish you weren’t born.

    I grew up in a family that suffered deeply because of dads PTSD of course when he was demobbed in 47 it was then ‘ Shell Shock ‘ I have since got my dads medical records and found out he had shock treatment after the war. My eldest brother has it as well.

    When I read the comments on here i.e. Vaccination, I think do these people have access to the same information I do? Is telling the difference between shit and clay beyond most peoples comprehension ? Then I realised they don’t, hence the election of Abbott the aftermath and the mess we are in now. You know I laugh when I read comments giving us a burst about Shorten… Well hello… Like Bob Hawke and Gillard were friends to the working class. When I read Tom Uren’s autobiography I realised my thoughts about Hawke were vindicated. Now where was I? Another beer then I’ll solve the North Korean problem..

  11. Jack Cade

    Alcibiades, and Phil.

    My favourite ‘humorous ’ quotation always reminds me of Menzies, Howard, Bush and all the other ‘warriors’…
    ‘I have already sacrificed two uncles to this war, yet I am still ready and willing to send my cousins.’
    No doubt Morrison, Dutton and Abbott are equally prepared to sacrifice…

  12. Phil.

    Jack Cade.

    Indeed. As I’m sure Trump is. After all he has already admitted they’re both idiots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: