# Allies and Adversaries



## onedomino (Apr 28, 2007)

Heres a chance to give your geopolitical opinion about Americas most significant allies and adversaries. Also a question about the most dangerous countries. My choices follow the questions.

_Name Americas five most significant allies in order of importance._
1. Japan
2. UK
3. Australia
4. Poland
5. Israel
Next in line: India; not sure if Canada makes the top ten.

_Name Americas five most significant adversaries in order of importance._
1. China
2. Russia, the new Soviets
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. France
Next in line: Germany

_Name the Worlds two most dangerous countries._
1. Iran
2. Pakistan


----------



## Gunny (Apr 28, 2007)

Name Americas five most significant allies in order of importance.
1. UK
2. Israel
3. Japan
4. Australia
5. 

Name Americas five most significant adversaries in order of importance.
1. Iran 
2. Illegal immigration
3. everybody else
4. 
5. 

Name the Worlds two most dangerous countries.
1. Iran
2. China


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 28, 2007)

_Name Americas five most significant allies in order of importance._
1. UK
2. Israel
3. Japan
4. Australia
5. Poland


_Name Americas five most significant adversaries in order of importance._
1. Iran
2. China
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. France


_Name the Worlds two most dangerous countries._
1. Iran
2. Pakistan[/QUOTE]


----------



## onedomino (Apr 28, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Name Americas five most significant allies in order of importance.
> 1. UK
> 2. Israel
> 3. Japan
> ...


Thanks for your response. However there does not seem to be much interest in these questions. The answers point toward how America should focus its foreign policy and its participation in free trade agreements. We might consider attempts to further integrate our economy with our most significant allies while restricting integration with adversaries. Why, for example, do we provide virtually unlimited US market access to our number one adversary China? Thereby giving them the financial capacity to build their military and oppose US foreign policy efforts in places like Sudan and Iran. China is using resources obtained from access to the US market to ink billions worth of oil and natural gas contracts (including infrastructure development) with Iran. Then the Mullahs use thereby derived financial gain to fund Hezbollah and develop nuclear weapons. American foreign policy should be closely linked to trade agreements that suppress terror activities and nuclear proliferation. Some make the argument that integrating out economy with those of our adversaries makes them more compliant with our foreign policy objectives. Clearly, that approach is not working.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 28, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Thanks for your response. However there does not seem to be much interest in these questions. The answers point toward how America should focus its foreign policy and its participation in free trade agreements. We might consider attempts to further integrate our economy with our most significant allies while restricting integration with adversaries. Why, for example, do we provide virtually unlimited US market access to our number one adversary China? Thereby giving them the financial capacity to build their military and oppose US foreign policy efforts in places like Sudan and Iran. China is using resources obtained from access to the US market to ink billions worth of oil and natural gas contracts (including infrastructure development) with Iran. Then the Mullahs use thereby derived financial gain to fund Hezbollah and develop nuclear weapons. American foreign policy should be closely linked to trade agreements that suppress terror activities and nuclear proliferation. Some make the argument that integrating out economy with those of our adversaries makes them more compliant with our foreign policy objectives. Clearly, that approach is not working.



I've been reading with interest but since I'm not American a response from me would skew your poll.  But if I can I'd like to comment on your points in this commentary.

Capitalism, as Marx pointed out, has within it the seeds of its own destruction.  In our world now the corporation is more powerful than the state.  The US is the pre-eminent free market economy in the world.  The corporations which dominate the free market demand freedom to operate so that they can maximise profit.  Regulation of any type is anathema to the free marketer and the corporation.  A corporation or an interest-grouping will devote much time and money to stop regulation of its activities.  A corporation would trade with Satan if it meant a profit.  As has been pointed out elsewhere - http://www.thecorporation.com/ - the corporation has no conscience.  

So the first conundrum appears.  In a free market should the government prohibit trading with a state that represents a threat to it?  I say it should, no question of that.  The free marketer says no, the market must be untrammelled.  So the corporation is free to trade with the threatening state, blind to the potential threat to its own existence.  Its own greed threatens its existence.  But since a corporation isn't a human it has no residual survival instinct, it's only driver is greed.

The upshot of this is that if the free market is allowed to operate without hindrance then the threatening states will take advantage of trade and build up its own hostile potential and perhaps may unleash it if the right circumstances arise.  

So, should foreign policy and trade policy be aligned?  I think in the interests of national security it's necessary.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 28, 2007)

diruetic, where r u from?


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 28, 2007)

Australia.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I've been reading with interest but since I'm not American a response from me would skew your poll.  But if I can I'd like to comment on your points in this commentary.
> 
> Capitalism, as Marx pointed out, has within it the seeds of its own destruction.  In our world now the corporation is more powerful than the state.  The US is the pre-eminent free market economy in the world.  The corporations which dominate the free market demand freedom to operate so that they can maximise profit.  Regulation of any type is anathema to the free marketer and the corporation.  A corporation or an interest-grouping will devote much time and money to stop regulation of its activities.  A corporation would trade with Satan if it meant a profit.  As has been pointed out elsewhere - http://www.thecorporation.com/ - the corporation has no conscience.
> 
> ...


It would be interesting to see your non-American perspective on the list of American allies and adversaries. Maybe an Australian list, or both. I do not believe that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. I believe that effective leadership and education can prevent that. I am for free trade. I am not for lining the pockets of our adversaries. I do not think that those positions must be mutually exclusive. For example, I would support a zero restriction trade policy with Australia and Japan. Even including our most advanced technology, military and otherwise. I would also support increased consumer prices, if that was the result of restricted trade with an adversary such as China. I think that many Americans (and maybe Australians also) do not understand the linkage between buying cheap consumer items at Wal-Mart (or similar stores), a modernized Chinese military, and nuclear weapons development in Iran (outlined above). But I think that many would adapt their consumer choices if there was effective leadership and education. Clearly, the media has little interest in such education because in the short-term it would probably translate into reduced advertising revenue.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 28, 2007)

From the bottom right hand side of the Mercator projection:

Name America&#8217;s five most significant allies in order of importance - this is based on alliances for strategic military and not trade purposes.

1. Canda
2. UK
3. Germany
4. Saudi Arabia
5. Australia

Threats

1. China
2. N. Korea
3. Iran
4. Russia
5. 

Two most dangerous countries

1. China
2. N. Korea


----------



## Gunny (Apr 28, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> From the bottom right hand side of the Mercator projection:
> 
> Name Americas five most significant allies in order of importance - this is based on alliances for strategic military and not trade purposes.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree with your allies list.

Canada is a laibility and rides our coattails.

Germany's too "iffy," and Saudi Arabia could as easily be on the other list.


----------



## Annie (Apr 28, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Heres a chance to give your geopolitical opinion about Americas most significant allies and adversaries. Also a question about the most dangerous countries. My choices follow the questions.
> 
> _Name Americas five most significant allies in order of importance._
> 1. UK
> ...



These are what I see for friend and foe.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 28, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I have to disagree with your allies list.
> 
> Canada is a laibility and rides our coattails.
> 
> Germany's too "iffy," and Saudi Arabia could as easily be on the other list.



Fair enough, but as I indicated, I see this from waaaay down there on the bottom right of the map.

I keep hearing about Canada riding on the US's coattails but I don't see it.  Now, let me clarify that.  Canada can't do anything about her location but I think if she could, she'd skeedadle out of North America and take her massive land mass ...oh...perhaps closer to Europe. But then there are so many snowbirds up there that they might slide over into the Pacific and end up somewhere between Easter Island and Australia.  But they can't.

In the Golden Horshoe they're very aware that New York isn't that far and if a nuke goes up in New York and the wind's blowing the wrong way, then the Leafs have got more to worry about than their recent shitty season on the ice.

So Canada is stuck with the US.  I suppose they make the best of it.  I think they're part of NORAD?  So they are part of the defensive shield for North America.  Well, that makes sense - it's only neighbourly.  So they do their bit.

I do hear that Americans piss and moan about Canada taking shelter from attack (conventional) by somehow relying on the US military for help.  First point, who the hell wants to attack Canada?  Even with wingnut Harper in Ottawa they are stil the most reasonable nation in the world.  

Besides, what would happen to the world's supply of Bear Claws?  

Canada isn't a liability to the US, the US is a liability to Canada.

Germany is solid.  They have a conservative Chancellor and she seems to be doing a pretty good job. Granted, Bush made a complete fool of himself by doing the squeezing of the shoulders thing but the Germans realise that sometimes the frat boy can't help himself.  Heck you should have seen the Brit press foaming at the gills when our PM some years ago dared to actually touch the Queen when guiding her through an obstacle course at some big do somewhere.  I won't repeat some of the insults directed at us, after all, the US was a colony of Britain once and I would think the barbs would resonate there as much as they did here (except we gave them the finger for drinking warm beer and got on with guzzling cold lager).

Saudi Arabia - wellllllllllllll - what can I say?  If foreign relations were the World Series then Saudi Arabia would be the greatest switch hitters the world has seen.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> From the bottom right hand side of the Mercator projection:
> 
> Name Americas five most significant allies in order of importance - this is based on alliances for strategic military and not trade purposes.
> 
> ...


Very interesting. Now, if you would, please give us the Australian lists.

I think that Germany should not be on the list of US allies. They are at best somewhere between an ally and an adversary. I took some graduate courses in Munich. And I saw first hand how much young Germans hate us. The German media is rabidly anti-American. Not just anti-Bush, but intrinsically anti-American, like the French. It was the Germans after all, that jump-started the Iranian nuke program. Even though they opted out after being threatened with US economic reprisals. The Germans have an amoral "mercantile" foreign policy similar to the Chinese. In Afghanistan, German troops, on the order of their government, hide in uncontested areas doing guard duty, along with the French. The southern Afghanistan fighting and dying against the Taliban is left to the nations with character and belief in their ideals such as the Australians, British, Canadians, Danes, and Americans.

 In central Europe, Americas best ally is Poland, and the Czechs are not far behind. They remember oppression better than any of us. Hopefully they will be able to help hold the line against Putin and the new Soviets.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 29, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Very interesting. Now, if you would, please give us the Australian lists.
> 
> I think that Germany should not be on the list of US allies. They are at best somewhere between an ally and an adversary. I took some graduate courses in Munich. And I saw first hand how much young Germans hate us. The German media is rabidly anti-American. Not just anti-Bush, but intrinsically anti-American, like the French. It was the Germans after all, that jump-started the Iranian nuke program. Even though they opted out after being threatened with US economic reprisals. The Germans have an amoral "mercantile" foreign policy similar to the Chinese. In Afghanistan, German troops, on the order of their government, hide in uncontested areas doing guard duty, along with the French. The southern Afghanistan fighting and dying against the Taliban is left to the nations with character and belief in their ideals such as the Australians, British, Canadians, Danes, and Americans.
> 
> In central Europe, America&#8217;s best ally is Poland, and the Czechs are not far behind. They remember oppression better than any of us. Hopefully they will be able to help hold the line against Putin and the new Soviets.




My list is below.  On Germany.  As you&#8217;d be aware foreign policy isn&#8217;t determined by a vox pop.  Germany voted out a leftish government and replaced it with a rightish government.  Regardless of the anti-Americanism of the people in your sample, the German government is pro-American.  I don&#8217;t know if the French are anti-American or they simply don&#8217;t care, that indifference (they do it so well) might annoy the average American but hey the French couldn&#8217;t care anyway.  Same goes for their government.  They&#8217;re not slavishly pro-American, even the Gaullists, but, so far so good.  Perhaps they just called America&#8217;s bluff?

Poland, let&#8217;s not forget Poland.  The Twins.  Don&#8217;t count on Poland.  People are going to get ticked off with the Twins in a while, note it, get back to me.

The Czech Republic.  Seriously good beer.  Next?

The Russians.  Everyone thought Gorbachev made them disappear didn&#8217;t they?  But they&#8217;re baaaaaaack.  Boy did Bush read Putin wrong.

Now, to my insignificant little country.

Name Australia&#8217;s five most significant allies in order of importance - this is based on alliances for strategic military and not trade purposes:

1.	United States
2.	United States
3.	United States
4.	United States
5.	United States

No, that&#8217;s not a typo.  It&#8217;s my view.  Our incredibly incompetent government has put its strategic eggs in one basket.  


Threats:

1.	United States
2.	Indonesia
3.	China
4.	India
5.	Anyone else that notices the US doesn&#8217;t really give a shit about us.

Two most dangerous countries

1. China
2. N. Korea


----------



## onedomino (Apr 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Threats:
> 5. Anyone else that notices the US doesnt really give a shit about us.


Funny, but that is not true. America does care about what happens to Australia...a lot. Yeah, you have less people on an entire continent then there are in Southern California, but that makes you sane, not insignificant. I have traveled in Australia and it is an extraordinary place. The people are friendly and seem to actually like Americans. Outside of Vancouver, Sydney is the most beautiful city I have ever seen. America would defend Australia; on that you can be sure.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 29, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Funny, but that is not true. America does care about what happens to Australia...a lot. Yeah, you have less people on an entire continent then there are in Southern California, but that makes you sane, not insignificant. I have traveled in Australia and it is an extraordinary place. The people are friendly and seem to actually like Americans. Outside of Vancouver, Sydney is the most beautiful city I have ever seen. America would defend Australia; on that you can be sure.



I appreciate the sentiment and I can return it (when I got to Bend, OR I thought I could really live there).  But I wasn't being an incredible prick, I was really thinking in economic terms.  For example, as soon as the US completed the invasion phase of Iraq we lost our wheat contracts with Iraq.  Now, granted our government and the stupidly corrupt AWB (Australian Wheat Board - ask me about agrarian socialism in Australia, it disgusts me) were up to no bloody good trading with Saddam in contravention of UN limitations.  The US has made sure its farmers are meeting those wheat contracts.  Over here there was bedlam.  But, hello, what did they expect???
Sheesh.  Foreign policy is is about national self-interest, not altruism.

So, when it comes to trade competitition, from my point of view we might have cornered the market in kangaroo scrotums (they are a souvenir item here) but for everything else, we have to face up to the open market.

Vancouver is lovely though   (shame about the downtown by the sin strip there getting a bit seedy).


----------



## onedomino (Apr 29, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Threats:
> 4. India


Why does Australia view India as a threat? They are, after all, the world's largest democracy. Yeah, I know you cannot kiss in public. I think that India, America, Japan, Indonesia, and Australia have a common interest in keeping the totalitarians in China contained. I lived in Shanghai for almost a year while studying at Fu Dan University. The Chinese I met are more ardent capitalists than many citizens of "Western" countries. But their government...they will shoot their own. Who rules China? The people with the most guns. There are more than 1.3 billion Chinese that have never voted for anything in their lives. They are taught in schools that Tibet has "always" been a part of China. I often asked my fellow students what would happen if we could throw a switch and there was democracy in China tomorrow? To a person they said that the place would explode. I think they underestimate themselves. We hear all the time about the new modern China. And yes, for the 200 million that live in the major cities there is an emerging modern China. But for the 1.1 billion that still live in the countryside it is business (er, totalitatianism...oppression) as usual. If you are a Chinese person living in the countryside and you want to go to one of the major cities to find work...good luck getting by the military roadblocks.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 29, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> These are what I see for friend and foe.


Point well taken about the Saudis. They might be economic allies...sort of. Soon, we will be replaced by the Chinese. Why? Because totalitarians flock together. The Chinese will not bother them with insignificant details like women's rights. The Saudis are our ideological foes in the extreme. Supposedly, they now fight Al Qaeda. For human rights? No, to save their own undemocratic, women suppressing necks.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 29, 2007)

I spent some time reading about the history of the ANZUS Treaty. It seems to have worked fairly well between the US and Australia, but I was surprised to read the US had suspended its treaty obligations to NZ, due to the fact that USN ships are forbidden to enter NZ ports.  This is because NZ declared itself a nuclear free zone. Lets hope the UN passes a resolution that no one can shoot at NZ. Although, why would anyone waste a missile on Hobbiton? From what I have read, US diplomats, and certainly the military, consider the US-NZ component of the ANZUS Treaty dead. Moreover, the US refuses to consider a free trade agreement with NZ because of its anti USN stance. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501174&objectid=10430512 

Unlike NZ, Australia seem to be a country that wants to defend itself. But the US has made the bonehead decision not to sell the F-22A Raptor to Australia, even though it was requested. Now Japan and Israel both are insisting that they should be able to purchase the fighter. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21602809-2703,00.html I hope that the Raptor is made available to all three countries. The US is using the lame excuse that Raptors in the hands of these three countries will change the balance of power in their regions. Sounds good to me. I think the real reason that the US does not want to sell Raptors is that such sales will blow up the financing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which Australia in particular has an investment. But F-35s are years down the road and Australia needs a new fighter now. It is reluctant, and understably so, to settle for current generation F-18s as a stopgap until the F-35 is available. Even when the F-35 is available, the F-22 will still be vastly superior. Australia, Japan, and Israel want the best fighter, and in my opinion, they should get it. But they should be careful what they wish for. Right now, the total R&D plus production cost for each of a planned 184 USAF Raptors is about $335 million each! http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48232 The USAF wants a lot more than 184 aircraft, but is having trouble getting the cash. We have come a long way. I remember reading that Spitfires cost about $50,000 each. Anyway, the R&D is already paid and the current fly away cost of a Raptor is $137 million each. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated/index.php Maybe in exchange for agreeing to sell the F-22, the three interested countries could ante up a few dollars on the R&D. Even if the did not want to do that, America should still provide the plane. These guys are our best allies. They should get the Raptor if they want it.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 29, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Why does Australia view India as a threat? They are, after all, the world's largest democracy. Yeah, I know you cannot kiss in public. I think that India, America, Japan, Indonesia, and Australia have a common interest in keeping the totalitarians in China contained. I lived in Shanghai for almost a year while studying at Fu Dan University. The Chinese I met are more ardent capitalists than many citizens of "Western" countries. But their government...they will shoot their own. Who rules China? The people with the most guns. There are more than 1.3 billion Chinese that have never voted for anything in their lives. They are taught in schools that Tibet has "always" been a part of China. I often asked my fellow students what would happen if we could throw a switch and there was democracy in China tomorrow? To a person they said that the place would explode. I think they underestimate themselves. We hear all the time about the new modern China. And yes, for the 200 million that live in the major cities there is an emerging modern China. But for the 1.1 billion that still live in the countryside it is business (er, totalitatianism...oppression) as usual. If you are a Chinese person living in the countryside and you want to go to one of the major cities to find work...good luck getting by the military roadblocks.



It's only my take.  And I base it on our trade interests.  We have a very smal economy that relies primarily on exporting our natural resources.  We have a very small manufacturing sector and it's getting smaller.  Our IT industry, because of our federal government which has never really understood the place of IT in the modern international economy, is on its knees.  India will become a bigger economy than China and will be able to dictate to us, just out of the sheer size of its economy, how we do things.

China needs a revolution (again).  My revulsion for its totalitarian government knows no bounds.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 29, 2007)

onedomino said:


> I spent some time reading about the history of the ANZUS Treaty. It seems to have worked fairly well between the US and Australia, but I was surprised to read the US had suspended its treaty obligations to NZ, due to the fact that USN ships are forbidden to enter NZ ports.  This is because NZ declared itself a &#8220;nuclear free zone.&#8221; Let&#8217;s hope the UN passes a resolution that no one can shoot at NZ. Although, why would anyone waste a missile on Hobbiton? From what I have read, US diplomats, and certainly the military, consider the US-NZ component of the ANZUS Treaty dead. Moreover, the US refuses to consider a free trade agreement with NZ because of its anti USN stance. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501174&objectid=10430512
> From memory that was under the Lange government, I think.  Again from memory the government required the USN to announce whether or not its visiting ships were nuclear-powered.  Why I don't know.  Perhaps it was so that the government could organise the necessary plans in the event of a problem with the reactor or armaments.  The US refused.  The NZ government said don't come here (there).  For NZ, so far so good.
> 
> It's in New Zealand's interests to avoid a free trade agreement with the US at all costs.  They have an economy smaller than ours.  They would lose from a free trade agreement with the US.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 29, 2007)

china is a serious threat, their military is 300 million, ours is 1 million. WE have a problem no?


----------



## onedomino (Apr 30, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> onedomino said:
> 
> 
> > I spent some time reading about the history of the ANZUS Treaty. It seems to have worked fairly well between the US and Australia, but I was surprised to read the US had suspended its treaty obligations to NZ, due to the fact that USN ships are forbidden to enter NZ ports.  This is because NZ declared itself a nuclear free zone. Lets hope the UN passes a resolution that no one can shoot at NZ. Although, why would anyone waste a missile on Hobbiton? From what I have read, US diplomats, and certainly the military, consider the US-NZ component of the ANZUS Treaty dead. Moreover, the US refuses to consider a free trade agreement with NZ because of its anti USN stance. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501174&objectid=10430512
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 30, 2007)

i cant speak for the u.s. government but i care deeply about australia


----------



## onedomino (Apr 30, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> i cant speak for the u.s. government but i care deeply about australia


As well you should. It is a land of freedom loving people who are not afraid to stand up for what the believe in.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 30, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It's only my take.  And I base it on our trade interests.  We have a very smal economy that relies primarily on exporting our natural resources.  We have a very small manufacturing sector and it's getting smaller.  Our IT industry, because of our federal government which has never really understood the place of IT in the modern international economy, is on its knees.  India will become a bigger economy than China and will be able to dictate to us, just out of the sheer size of its economy, how we do things.


If I was in the Australian government, I would try to think as big as my continent. Take, for example, the situation with the F-22. That fighter, as you know, is not just an airplane. Beyond the strategic benefits it can wield to back up diplomacy, it is a technological system that could provide thousands of Australian jobs and improve its competitive economic posture. Australian integration with the F-22 program would mean massive IT investment and other aerospace innovation. For example, to be completely effective, the F-22 requires integration with orbital satellites, land forces, and naval assets. Why is there no near-equator Australian launch facility for military and commercial satellites? Use the F-22 to develop such facilities, provide thousands of additional jobs, and thrust Australia to the forefront of IT competition. How can Australia convince America to provide the aircraft and the assistance? I am not sure, but as was mentioned, the flyaway cost of a F-22 is $137 million each. Why cannot Australia seek to license the aircraft, build it in Australia, and figure out how to build it for less? Everyone knows that American defense contractors are riddled with waste and corruption. Come on, an aircraft the size of a tennis court and it costs $137 million per copy less R&D!? Compete. Show us it can be built for less and maybe the USAF can get its wish to purchase more than 184 of the nasty little wonders.


----------



## Diuretic (Apr 30, 2007)

Sadly onedomino, for the past 11 years we have had a federal government that has had absolutely no vision.  I won't bang on about their inability to do anything right - our Defence Department is a shambles and is letting down every single person in our military.  Articles have been published in our better newspapers about the procurement debacles - the F-22/F-35 issue is just one of the latest.  But happily the mood is for change.  Our tired, incompetent, limited, visionless, clueless federal government is going to be shown the door just as soon as our PM works out what he thinks will be the best date for a federal election.  We are waiting for him with baseball bats at the ready.


----------



## Mr.Conley (Apr 30, 2007)

onedomino said:


> If I was in the Australian government, I would try to think as big as my continent. Take, for example, the situation with the F-22. That fighter, as you know, is not just an airplane. Beyond the strategic benefits it can wield to back up diplomacy, it is a technological system that could provide thousands of Australian jobs and improve its competitive economic posture. Australian integration with the F-22 program would mean massive IT investment and other aerospace innovation. For example, to be completely effective, the F-22 requires integration with orbital satellites, land forces, and naval assets. Why is there no near-equator Australian launch facility for military and commercial satellites? Use the F-22 to develop such facilities, provide thousands of additional jobs, and thrust Australia to the forefront of IT competition. How can Australia convince America to provide the aircraft and the assistance? I am not sure, but as was mentioned, the flyaway cost of a F-22 is $137 million each. Why cannot Australia seek to license the aircraft, build it in Australia, and figure out how to build it for less? Everyone knows that American defense contractors are riddled with waste and corruption. Come on, an aircraft the size of a tennis court and it costs $137 million per copy less R&D!? Compete. Show us it can be built for less and maybe the USAF can get its wish to purchase more than 184 of the nasty little wonders.


Would the US Gov. consider selling F-22's to Australia? Unlikely, the military would simply be too concerned about spies. Would the government license the plans and allow Australia to commence its own F-22 program? No way in Hell.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 30, 2007)

Mr.Conley said:


> Would the US Gov. consider selling F-22's to Australia? Unlikely, the military would simply be too concerned about spies. Would the government license the plans and allow Australia to commence its own F-22 program? No way in Hell.


You are probably right. But that does not mean Australia should not try. Who knows? America may come to its senses. If we cannot trust Australians, who can we trust? Australia deserves the best that America can provide. Through the decades they have earned that and more. They are a loyal ally to America and more than that they are loyal to themselves and their ideals. In a world where the forces of totalitarianism well up from almost every spring, we must safeguard those places where individual liberty are held in the highest regard.


----------



## Mr.Conley (Apr 30, 2007)

onedomino said:


> You are probably right. But that does not mean Australia should not try. Who knows? America may come to its senses. If we cannot trust Australians, who can we trust? Australia deserves the best that America can provide. Through the decades they have earned that and more. They are loyal allies to America and more than that they are loyal to themselves and their ideals. In a world where the forces of totalitarianism well up from almost every spring, we must safeguard those places where individual liberty are held in the highest regard.



I don't believe the concern would so much be that Australia might betray us, but that 3rd party countries (ie. China) would attempt to gain access to plans for the F-22 via espionage.

From a US military perspective, I would imagine that the Pentagon feels that the risk associated with giving away the plans to the centerpiece of American defense for the next 10-15 years and the associated risks outweighs the benefits of tranferring the technology to an ally, however loyal, especially when you can offer other, less strategically valuable weapons platforms in its stead.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 30, 2007)

Mr.Conley said:


> I don't believe the concern would so much be that Australia might betray us, but that 3rd party countries (ie. China) would attempt to gain access to plans for the F-22 via espionage.
> 
> From a US military perspective, I would imagine that the Pentagon feels that the risk associated with giving away the plans to the centerpiece of American defense for the next 10-15 years and the associated risks outweighs the benefits of tranferring the technology to an ally, however loyal, especially when you can offer other, less strategically valuable weapons platforms in its stead.


Those are good points. But I would maintain that there is no difference between "American defense" and Australian defense. Or at least there should not be. Regarding "stragetically valuable weapons platforms," America should want an ally like Australia to dominate its region of influence in the Pacific. What are the alternatives? China? Indonesia? America? We have enough to do; let's share the load. I think the same argument holds for NE Asia. Do we want China to call the shots, or Japan? Well, we know the answer.


----------



## Mr.Conley (Apr 30, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Those are good points. But I would maintain that there is no difference between "American defense" and Australian defense. Or at least there should not be. Regarding "stragetically valuable weapons platforms," America should want an ally like Australia to dominate its region of influence in the Pacific. What are the alternatives? China? Indonesia? America? We have enough to do; let's share the load. I think the same argument holds for NE Asia. Do we want China to call the shots, or Japan? Well, we know the answer.



I think the plan is something along the idea of having your cake and eating it too. We sell the Australians, the Japanese, the Indians, the South Koreans, etc. etc. all the various weapons platforms we've developed in recent years such as the F-18 which, while not as good as the most up to date technologies found in the F-22 type platforms, are still signifcant weapons systems and do offer a deterent against any possible threat from China. 

That way we're supporting our allies with sound weapons thereby ensuring these countries an increased profile in their respective regions while guaranteeing that, at the end of the day, the real goodies- and power- stay firmly in American hands.

Now I'm not endorsing this position, mind you. I'm just trying to look at the situation from the Pentagon's POV.


----------



## onedomino (May 1, 2007)

Mr.Conley said:


> I think the plan is something along the idea of having your cake and eating it too. We sell the Australians, the Japanese, the Indians, the South Koreans, etc. etc. all the various weapons platforms we've developed in recent years such as the F-18 which, while not as good as the most up to date technologies found in the F-22 type platforms, are still signifcant weapons systems and do offer a deterent against any possible threat from China.
> 
> That way we're supporting our allies with sound weapons thereby ensuring these countries an increased profile in their respective regions while guaranteeing that, at the end of the day, the real goodies- and power- stay firmly in American hands.
> 
> Now I'm not endorsing this position, mind you. I'm just trying to look at the situation from the Pentagon's POV.


Let me try answering from another perspective. Many believe that nations do not have allies, only interests. So be it. Here are some American interests regarding the sale of F-22s to our allies. Are we not stronger in the Pacific when our defenses are integrated with Japan and Australia? The F-22 is not merely (or even mostly) about air dominance or invisibly putting GPS bombs on targets. Rather, it is about raising the level of our economic and technological infrastructure to the point where we cannot be assailed by totalitarians like China and Russia. This is the ascent we have been on since Kitty Hawk, whether we realized it or not. Do we not want our most trusted allies (interests) to come with us and stand by our side with equality? By making allies like Japan and Australia stronger, we make ourselves stronger, and we can better contain the forces that seek to overthrow individual liberty. Some may say that this is too idealistic, but what better thing can we provide than our best defenses against the totalitarians?

By itself, perhaps Australia does not have enough leverage to swing the deal. But what if Japan, Australia, and Israel combined to press the Pentagon with a single voice? Yes, there is the F-35 that will be available in the future. But it is only the modern equivalent of the F-16. It can contest for air superiority against a Chinese challenge, but it is the F-22 that can without doubt deliver air dominance. But at $335 million per aircraft!? Why should America be the country that pays the entire bill when we have allies that share our ideals and goals, and want to be our partners? We should dump the Air Force and Navy versions of the F-35 and continue the jump-jet Marine version. We should use the money to build far more than 184 F-22s, including a F-22N for the Navy. We should integrate our most trusted allies with this approach in a way that allows them to develop their own infrastructure. We have done this before. When the F-15 was on top, we delivered it to Israel and allowed Japan to build its own versions. We should do that with the F-22, this time including Australia, and the UK if it is interested.


----------



## onedomino (May 1, 2007)

Mr. C., are you still in Bejing? Give us some impressions. Are you _free_ to write without being snooped?


----------



## onedomino (May 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Our tired, incompetent, limited, visionless, clueless federal government is going to be shown the door just as soon as our PM works out what he thinks will be the best date for a federal election.  We are waiting for him with baseball bats at the ready.


Can you elaborate on this? From here, I think Howard has done ok. The Australian-US FTA inked in 2005, should give you an economic advantage over other Pacific and South Asian competitors. Tell us who you want to take charge of the Australian government.


----------



## Diuretic (May 1, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Can you elaborate on this? From here, I think Howard has done ok. The Australian-US FTA inked in 2005, should give you an economic advantage over other Pacific and South Asian competitors. Tell us who you want to take charge of the Australian government.



On the Free Trade Agreement.  We - ie ordinary folks - still don't know the minute details.  One of our greatest fears was being sold out on things that are very important to us.  For example, it's strongy suspected here that our PBS - Prescription Benefit Scheme - which gives us affordable medicines because the fed govt uses taxpayers money to supplement the price which the consumer is charged, is on the chopping block to allow big US pharmaceutal companies to charge the consumer full tote odds.  I'd dump the FTA immediately.  SE Asia and the Pacific aren't our economic competitors, the US is one of our major economic competitors.  

Howard has actually done nothing constructive.  We are going through an economic boom that was faciliated by the policies of the Hawke Labor government in 1983 and consecutive Labor governments (under Keating) until 1996.  Howard has been saved by China's demand for our resources.  I admit to being prejudiced against the party in federal govt but as objectively as I can make the point I stress that this is a _laissez-faire _govt that has failed us.  They have used the budget surpluses generated by the resources-exported boom to offer tax cuts without setting up the infrastructure for our future.  

Howard is in thrall to big business and definitely certain big business sectors.  I want Labor to run the country.  They're not perfect by any means but they're my preferred government.


----------



## Adam's Apple (May 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Threats:
> 
> 1.	United States



Could you explain that one?  How could the U.S., a country that shares so much in common with Australia, be a threat?  This is not a smart-ass question.  I really want to know.


----------



## Diuretic (May 1, 2007)

Adam's Apple said:


> Could you explain that one?  How could the U.S., a country that shares so much in common with Australia, be a threat?  This is not a smart-ass question.  I really want to know.



No problemo. Can I begin by saying that this isn't anti-Bush/GOP thing.  The irony is that, although I'm not enamoured of the current administration that if our current (conservative/reactionary) government wins the next election and in their three year term the Congress becomes dominated by the Dems and the White House goes Dem that we - Australia - will be in deep shit because of our current Prime Minister's almost homo-erotic devotion to Bush?  If we don't get a Labor (ie social democratic party but to the left of the Dems) government then we are screwn (sorry, too much lurking in Freeperville), we are screwed.

Okay, aside.

You have the largest economy in the world.  We have a very small, almost boutique economy that would probably fit in Paris Hilton's handbag and still have room for her pink Chihuaha and her panties she has to take off before she gets out of a car to flash the paparazzi.

Us negotiating a free trade agreement with the US is akin to a drunken Fray Wray telling a horny King Kong on a few tonnes of viagra that it ain't gonna happen.  You will simply steamroll us by virtue of your size.  We were mugs to even think of it but our PM who has the hots for Dubya sold us out.  We just don't know it yet.

You invaded Iraq.  You occupied Iraq.  Regardless of the dirty corrupt bastards at our agrarian socialist wheat trading desk (Australian Wheat Board) you did the dirty on us big time.  Our wheat exports to Iraq have collapsed.  Your farmers have now got the contracts we once had.  With friends like you we don't need enemas, we've been done anally and done hard, no reach-around, no lube.

Nothing personal, it's about money I know that.  But the US is a threat to us because of the various manifestations of the domestic imperative. No one does pork like a US politician.


----------



## onedomino (May 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> No problemo. Can I begin by saying that this isn't anti-Bush/GOP thing.  The irony is that, although I'm not enamoured of the current administration that if our current (conservative/reactionary) government wins the next election and in their three year term the Congress becomes dominated by the Dems and the White House goes Dem that we - Australia - will be in deep shit because of our current Prime Minister's almost homo-erotic devotion to Bush?  If we don't get a Labor (ie social democratic party but to the left of the Dems) government then we are screwn (sorry, too much lurking in Freeperville), we are screwed.
> 
> Okay, aside.
> 
> ...


Currently in the polls, the leading Republican candidate for President defeats the leading Democratic challengers. And the only thing with lower approval ratings in US polls than Bush, is the Democrat led US Congress. Moreover, the relationship that the US has with Australia is not driven by the personalities of its current leaders. To think otherwise would be denying a long and close history. For example, the 2004 inked FTA has been on the agenda of every Australian government since 1946. In fact the Hawke Government, which you have mentioned favorably, renewed mordern interest in a FTA with the US in the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement

Australia has an economy that has grown very significantly during the past five years and is 1/14 the size of the US economy. Quite impressive for a country with only 25 million people or so. Your GDP per capita is more than US $33,000, near or beyond the UK, and among the leaders in the world. You seem very worried about US competition. In 2006, the US comprised only about 13 percent of Australian imports, while the EU was more than 20 percent. I'd be more worried about the EU, if I were you. The reason that the Howard Government finally concluded the FTA with the US is that only about 6 percent of your exports went to the US (2006) and, obviously, a FTA with America will make Australia more competitive in that market. http://www.economist.com/countries/Australia/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=8952993 Are you saying that wheat contracts for Iraq were not competively bid, but just handed to US farmers? Clearly that was not the case. In 2006, Australia won new wheat contracts with Iraq and the previous losses were said to be because of bribes paid to Saddam Husseins regime and corruption in the Australian Wheat Board. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1583338.htm and http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/27/news/australia.php Maybe that Wheat Board should keep its pencil sharp.


----------



## Mr.Conley (May 1, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Mr. C., are you still in Bejing? Give us some impressions. Are you _free_ to write without being snooped?



No, I was only in China for the fall semester at Peking University. I have now returned to my regular university in the States.


----------



## onedomino (May 1, 2007)

Mr.Conley said:


> No, I was only in China for the fall semester at Peking University. I have now returned to my regular university in the States.


So did you travel within China very much? Did you get out into rural China? Can you give us your impressions?


----------



## Diuretic (May 1, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Currently in the polls, the leading Republican candidate for President defeats the leading Democratic challengers. And the only thing with lower approval ratings in US polls than Bush, is the Democrat led US Congress. Moreover, the relationship that the US has with Australia is not driven by the personalities of its current leaders. To think otherwise would be denying a long and close history. For example, the 2004 inked FTA has been on the agenda of every Australian government since 1946. In fact the Hawke Government, which you have mentioned favorably, renewed mordern interest in a FTA with the US in the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement



I think Bush is at 28%, the Congress is higher.

Yes the FTA with a different administration.  This time we've been screwed by the Bush Admniistration.



onedomino said:


> Australia has an economy that has grown very significantly during the past five years and is 1/14 the size of the US economy. Quite impressive for a country with only 25 million people or so. Your GDP per capita is more than US $33,000, near or beyond the UK, and among the leaders in the world. You seem very worried about US competition. In 2006, the US comprised only about 13 percent of Australian imports, while the EU was more than 20 percent. I'd be more worried about the EU, if I were you. The reason that the Howard Government finally concluded the FTA with the US is that only about 6 percent of your exports went to the US (2006) and, obviously, a FTA with America will make Australia more competitive in that market. http://www.economist.com/countries/Australia/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=8952993



Pop about 21 million.

We've grown but we've wasted what we had.  Our govt has mismanaged the benefits from the temporary boom.  




onedomino said:


> Are you saying that wheat contracts for Iraq were not competively bid, but just handed to US farmers? Clearly that was not the case. In 2006, Australia won new wheat contracts with Iraq and the previous losses were said to be because of bribes paid to Saddam Husseins regime and corruption in the Australian Wheat Board. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1583338.htm and http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/27/news/australia.php Maybe that Wheat Board should keep its pencil sharp.



We were shafted.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...at-deal-in-iraq/2006/11/24/1164341401011.html


----------



## Annie (May 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I think Bush is at 28%, the Congress is higher.
> 
> Yes the FTA with a different administration.  This time we've been screwed by the Bush Admniistration.
> 
> ...



The latest aggregate polling I saw had the President's approval rating at 35.6%, while the Congressional approval was at 36.8, so you are partially correct, Congress is very slightly ahead.


----------



## Diuretic (May 1, 2007)

It will probably change on a week to week basis I would think. I suppose in these things it's the trends that matter.


----------



## Annie (May 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It will probably change on a week to week basis I would think. I suppose in these things it's the trends that matter.



So your projections?


----------



## onedomino (May 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Pop about 21 million.
> We've grown but we've wasted what we had.  Our govt has mismanaged the benefits from the temporary boom.
> 
> We were shafted.
> ...


There are less people than I mentioned, which makes your GDP performance even better. Temporary boom? Look at the Australian GDP performance since 2002 in US dollars:
2002 $412b
2003 $525b
2004 $638b
2005 $712b
2006 $754b
Does not look too temporary to me. How can you call that performance mismanagement? Seems you have a hard time giving the government any credit because they are not on your side of the political spectrum. In a five year period, the Australian economy has grown 83 percent! I got these numbers from the Economist.com link in the post above. You were shafted? That's not what the SMH article says. Your Wheat Board had been bribing Saddam Hussein and the Americans let the Iraqis know it. How can you call that shafted? Only a paper as far left and as notoriously anti Howard and Bush as the SMH would have the nerve to call exposure of corruption sabotage. I call it justice. The Wheat Board paid Saddam Hussein's regime US $224 million in kickbacks to receive wheat contracts! Did anyone go to jail? It is corrupt to pay for contracts. Doing so sabotages free competition. If you are an American business person and you pay bribes to receive contracts overseas, and get caught, then you go to prison.


----------



## onedomino (May 1, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I think Bush is at 28%, the Congress is higher.


You can find polls that say just about whatever you want. Heres a May 1st poll that has Bushs approval rating at 41 percent. Elsewhere on that page you can find a poll that says only 20 percent of the public think that Congress is doing a good or excellent job. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm


----------



## Diuretic (May 1, 2007)

onedomino said:


> There are less people than I mentioned, which makes your GDP performance even better. Temporary boom? Look at the Australian GDP performance since 2002 in US dollars:
> 2002 $412b
> 2003 $525b
> 2004 $638b
> ...



The statistics are just a snapshot of economic activity and not a full picture of government administration.  For example, the infrastructure problems with ports in the eastern states here meant that for a lengthy period of time coal couldn't be exported because ships simply couldn't get into the ports to get it.  You see you can't just look at raw figures without looking at other factors.  

Pehaps I'm biased but I keep reading stories in our national press of the mismanagement of this federal government.  Those are not the sort of stories that make the international press and it's hard for you to find them using a search engine because you need to know key words.  

Now since you brought up my bias - if you regard the SMH as far left then you have revealed your own bias.  Now I know that I can understand you better.


----------



## Diuretic (May 1, 2007)

onedomino said:


> You can find polls that say just about whatever you want. Heres a May 1st poll that has Bushs approval rating at 41 percent. Elsewhere on that page you can find a poll that says only 20 percent of the public think that Congress is doing a good or excellent job. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm



Yes the trends are the important aspect I suppose.


----------



## akiboy (May 2, 2007)

*


Diuretic said:



			India will become a bigger economy than China and will be able to dictate to us, just out of the sheer size of its economy, how we do things.
		
Click to expand...

*
India never "dictates" any other country.India does not have any ambition to "boss" over Asia like CHina.India(and particularly Indian people) regard Australia as a very friendly country. We have no qualms about any nation in the world. The only countries(especially their govt and military) whom we..sorry i hate(and most of us) is CHina and Pakistan. There will be a war between India and the Communists. Personally I have nothing against the Chinese people. its the bloody government and PLA which makes my blood boil. Especially China's super power ambitions. Australia should stop selling them uranium in the first place. India will never allow China to "take over" Asia. And we are a democracy not a war mongering communist nation.


----------



## onedomino (May 2, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Now since you brought up my bias - if you regard the SMH as far left then you have revealed your own bias.  Now I know that I can understand you better.


Well SMH is not exactly Pravda; more like NYT, Le Monde, or Al Guardian.


----------



## onedomino (May 2, 2007)

akiboy said:


> Australia should stop selling them uranium in the first place.


Interesting and disturbing.

First this: "China has insufficient uranium for both its civil and military nuclear programs, as the Chinese ambassador to Australia acknowledged in a December 2005 speech. Australian uranium sales would free up China's limited domestic reserves for the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction. As the Taipei Times editorialised on January 21, 2006: "Whether or not Aussie uranium goes directly into Chinese warheads  or whether it is used in power stations in lieu of uranium that goes into Chinese warheads  makes little difference. Canberra is about to do a deal with a regime with a record of flouting international conventions." http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...anium+sales+to+china&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us 

Followed by this: "Canada's major competitor in the uranium business, Australia, has reached a nuclear safeguards deal with Beijing that opens up the Chinese market to Australian mines. There were objections from a scattering of anti-Beijing protesters and Australian opposition politicians. They accused the government of putting money ahead of human rights in dealing with an undemocratic Chinese regime." http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/04/03/australia-china060403.html


----------



## Diuretic (May 2, 2007)

akiboy said:


> India never "dictates" any other country.India does not have any ambition to "boss" over Asia like CHina.India(and particularly Indian people) regard Australia as a very friendly country. We have no qualms about any nation in the world. The only countries(especially their govt and military) whom we..sorry i hate(and most of us) is CHina and Pakistan. There will be a war between India and the Communists. Personally I have nothing against the Chinese people. its the bloody government and PLA which makes my blood boil. Especially China's super power ambitions. Australia should stop selling them uranium in the first place. India will never allow China to "take over" Asia. And we are a democracy not a war mongering communist nation.



Largest democracy in the world.  I meant that with increased economic power comes the ability to dictate terms of trade, that's just how it goes.


----------



## Diuretic (May 2, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Well SMH is not exactly Pravda; more like NYT, Le Monde, or Al Guardian.



Matter of opinion of course, SMH is perhaps close to NYT, I don't read Le Monde regularly but SMH is, I think, to the right of the Guardian and certainly the Independent.


----------



## Diuretic (May 2, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Interesting and disturbing.
> 
> First this: "China has insufficient uranium for both its civil and military nuclear programs, as the Chinese ambassador to Australia acknowledged in a December 2005 speech. Australian uranium sales would free up China's limited domestic reserves for the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction. As the Taipei Times editorialised on January 21, 2006: "Whether or not Aussie uranium goes directly into Chinese warheads &#8212; or whether it is used in power stations in lieu of uranium that goes into Chinese warheads &#8212; makes little difference. Canberra is about to do a deal with a regime with a record of flouting international conventions." http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...anium+sales+to+china&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
> 
> Followed by this: "Canada's major competitor in the uranium business, Australia, has reached a nuclear safeguards deal with Beijing that opens up the Chinese market to Australian mines. There were objections from a scattering of anti-Beijing protesters and Australian opposition politicians. They accused the government of putting money ahead of human rights in dealing with an undemocratic Chinese regime." http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/04/03/australia-china060403.html



If I get in my car and drive north for three hours at 110 kph I will soon find myself at a town called Roxby Downs which serves the largest uranium mind in the world at Olympic Dam.  Uranium as part of the economy and as part of global politics is definitely in the forefront of our minds here.


----------



## onedomino (May 2, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> If I get in my car and drive north for three hours at 110 kph I will soon find myself at a town called Roxby Downs which serves the largest uranium mind in the world at Olympic Dam.  Uranium as part of the economy and as part of global politics is definitely in the forefront of our minds here.


So you live near Port Augusta?


----------



## akiboy (May 2, 2007)

*


Diuretic said:



			Largest democracy in the world.  I meant that with increased economic power comes the ability to dictate terms of trade, that's just how it goes.
		
Click to expand...

*
We dont have aggressive trade policies like CHina. Even if we do manage to become the no. 1 economy in Asia it will do no harm to any nation. Infact both Australia and India will benefit from this. We can have a bigger trade and as you know lots of Indian students come to Australia to study so our education exchange programs will also benefit.


----------



## Diuretic (May 2, 2007)

onedomino said:


> So you live near Port Augusta?



I buggered that up didn't I? Let me revise.

Drive north - usually about three hours to Port Augusta if I take Higway One and manage to dodge the B-doubles and roadtrains.  Then about two and bit hours to Woomera, take the turn at Pimba and off to Roxby, so it's five hours isn't it?  I used to live in Port Augusta (and elsewhere up north), so that was a stupid error.


----------



## Diuretic (May 2, 2007)

akiboy said:


> We dont have aggressive trade policies like CHina. Even if we do manage to become the no. 1 economy in Asia it will do no harm to any nation. Infact both Australia and India will benefit from this. We can have a bigger trade and as you know lots of Indian students come to Australia to study so our education exchange programs will also benefit.



Not yet you don't have aggressive trade policies, you will though, that's just human nature.  For sure we will benefit.  Have no doubt I know India is a democratic nation and if you get to be number one that's fine with me.  I don't fear India but China worries me a lot.  Yes education exchange would be good.  I have a personal interest in open and distance education, I'd love to visit Indian universities to see it working there - Indira Gandhi National Open University for example.  Bad luck for me though, I'm not an academic so I'd be dreaming anyway.


----------



## CSM (May 3, 2007)

Interesting question. In my opinion, the only two countries that have been US allies (staunch allies at that) through thick and thin, despite some disagreements, are the UK and Australia. Israel is kind of in there, depending on the international situation.  The rest are either indifferent or actively opposed to the US.


----------



## onedomino (May 3, 2007)

CSM said:


> Interesting question. In my opinion, the only two countries that have been US allies (staunch allies at that) through thick and thin, despite some disagreements, are the UK and Australia. Israel is kind of in there, depending on the international situation.  The rest are either indifferent or actively opposed to the US.


Which two countries do you think are the most dangerous, CSM?


----------



## onedomino (May 3, 2007)

akiboy said:


> We dont have aggressive trade policies like CHina. Even if we do manage to become the no. 1 economy in Asia it will do no harm to any nation. Infact both Australia and India will benefit from this. We can have a bigger trade and as you know lots of Indian students come to Australia to study so our education exchange programs will also benefit.


So akiboy, from an Indian perspective, what are your answers to the original questions that were the subject of this thread? India's five most important allies, etc.


----------



## CSM (May 3, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Which two countries do you think are the most dangerous, CSM?



Depends in which aspect you examine them. 

Iran is just scary because (in my opinion) they will get and use nuclear weapons either directly or through a terrorist proxy. 

China is rapidly becoming an economic force to reckon with but I don't think they are necessarily a military threat for a lot of reasons (mostly because they are trying to deal with internal/domestic issues). 

I don't discount North Korea but I think China can keep them in check. 

Some South American countries could be potential troublemakess (Chavez seems to view himself as the next Castro) and we have ignored That region for far too long.

The Middle East is the biggest fly in the ointment and probably will be for some time to come.


----------

