This was from the National Press Club today.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has likened former prime minister Paul Keating
to 1930s British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain over his views on China.
Instituted by Mr Chamberlain in the hope of avoiding war, appeasement was the name given to Britain's policy in the 1930s of allowing Germany to expand territory into neighbouring nations without interference.
“If you look at
Paul Keating, or Neville Keating or Paul Chamberlain ...
I mean you could take your pick,” Mr Dutton told the National Press Club.
“I think they’re all pretty appropriate monikers for Paul Keating.
“I can’t for the life of me reference any of what Paul Keating is saying to fact in the year 2021.”
Neville Keating or Paul Chamberlain ?
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
Bobby
- Posts: 17074
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:09 pm
Re: Neville Keating or Paul Chamberlain ?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaki ... 097abf3e3f
Defence Minister Peter Dutton says Australia is facing the most significant change in strategic environment since WWII, warning every major city is within range of China’s missiles.
During his first address to the National Press Club in Canberra in his current role, Mr Dutton said he did not believe China wished to occupy other countries but saw Australia as subordinate, or a “tributary state”.
He also warned about the consequences of Beijing taking back Taiwan and said any conflict with China in the Indo Pacific would be “catastrophic”.
“If Taiwan is taken, surely the Shenkakus are next,” Mr Dutton said, referring to a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.
He said in the abscence of “counterpressure”, the Chinese government would become the sole security and economic partner for Indo Pacific nations.
“Now, that is a not just a perilous military and economic situation for our country, but for so many more,” he said.
Mr Dutton said that was why the enduring presence of the United States and other partners was “absolutely essential”.
Mr Dutton said China’s naval battle force had more than tripled in size over the past two decades alone to become the biggest navy in the world, with 355 ships and submarines.
He said every major city in Australia, including Hobart, was in range of China’s missiles which were projected to reach between 700 and 1000 nuclear warheads in the next decade.
Peter Dutton said a conflict in the Indo Pacific would be catastrophic.
Peter Dutton said a conflict in the Indo Pacific would be catastrophic.
“Today, we face the most significant change in our strategic environment since the Second World War,” he said.
“Once again, Australia finds herself in a region at the centre epicentre of global strategic competition, a region witness to a military build-up of a scale and ambition that historically has rarely been associated with peaceful outcomes.
“Along with peoples of the Indo-Pacific and the world, Australians have watched, and we’ve watched very closely as the Chinese government has engaged in increasingly alarming activities.”
Mr Dutton said he had spoken many times with Prime Minister Scott Morrison about how “we live in the echoes of the 1930s”.
“There are many men and women who, as parents, sent their children off to conflict in the near region and across Europe and many other parts of the world and those soldiers and those veterans suffered and paid a great price and I never want to see that repeated,” he said.
“The world would be foolish to repeat the mistakes of the 1930s.
“We live in times of high tension but the region is not on an inevitable path to conflict.
“We live in times of high tension but the region is not on an inevitable path to conflict.
“But only if all countries of goodwill ensure together we do our utmost to steer clear of the cliff face.”
Peter Dutton warned that every major city was in range of China’s missiles.
Peter Dutton warned that every major city was in range of China’s missiles.
He said conflict needed to be avoided, however “acquiescence or appeasement is a tactic that is a cul-de-sac of strategic misfortune or worse.”
“Were conflict to come about through misunderstanding, through miscalculation or through hostility, it would be calamitous for us all,” he said.
“Australia’s position is very clear. Conflict must be avoided.
“I believe we should call out actions that are destabilising and contrary to the interests of Australia in our region.
“We do this because the Australian people expect it of their government but we also do it because we must amplify voices silenced by coercion, yet which seek the same peace and stability as us.”
Ashleigh Gleeson is a crime and court reporter for The Daily Telegraph.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton says Australia is facing the most significant change in strategic environment since WWII, warning every major city is within range of China’s missiles.
During his first address to the National Press Club in Canberra in his current role, Mr Dutton said he did not believe China wished to occupy other countries but saw Australia as subordinate, or a “tributary state”.
He also warned about the consequences of Beijing taking back Taiwan and said any conflict with China in the Indo Pacific would be “catastrophic”.
“If Taiwan is taken, surely the Shenkakus are next,” Mr Dutton said, referring to a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.
He said in the abscence of “counterpressure”, the Chinese government would become the sole security and economic partner for Indo Pacific nations.
“Now, that is a not just a perilous military and economic situation for our country, but for so many more,” he said.
Mr Dutton said that was why the enduring presence of the United States and other partners was “absolutely essential”.
Mr Dutton said China’s naval battle force had more than tripled in size over the past two decades alone to become the biggest navy in the world, with 355 ships and submarines.
He said every major city in Australia, including Hobart, was in range of China’s missiles which were projected to reach between 700 and 1000 nuclear warheads in the next decade.
Peter Dutton said a conflict in the Indo Pacific would be catastrophic.
Peter Dutton said a conflict in the Indo Pacific would be catastrophic.
“Today, we face the most significant change in our strategic environment since the Second World War,” he said.
“Once again, Australia finds herself in a region at the centre epicentre of global strategic competition, a region witness to a military build-up of a scale and ambition that historically has rarely been associated with peaceful outcomes.
“Along with peoples of the Indo-Pacific and the world, Australians have watched, and we’ve watched very closely as the Chinese government has engaged in increasingly alarming activities.”
Mr Dutton said he had spoken many times with Prime Minister Scott Morrison about how “we live in the echoes of the 1930s”.
“There are many men and women who, as parents, sent their children off to conflict in the near region and across Europe and many other parts of the world and those soldiers and those veterans suffered and paid a great price and I never want to see that repeated,” he said.
“The world would be foolish to repeat the mistakes of the 1930s.
“We live in times of high tension but the region is not on an inevitable path to conflict.
“We live in times of high tension but the region is not on an inevitable path to conflict.
“But only if all countries of goodwill ensure together we do our utmost to steer clear of the cliff face.”
Peter Dutton warned that every major city was in range of China’s missiles.
Peter Dutton warned that every major city was in range of China’s missiles.
He said conflict needed to be avoided, however “acquiescence or appeasement is a tactic that is a cul-de-sac of strategic misfortune or worse.”
“Were conflict to come about through misunderstanding, through miscalculation or through hostility, it would be calamitous for us all,” he said.
“Australia’s position is very clear. Conflict must be avoided.
“I believe we should call out actions that are destabilising and contrary to the interests of Australia in our region.
“We do this because the Australian people expect it of their government but we also do it because we must amplify voices silenced by coercion, yet which seek the same peace and stability as us.”
Ashleigh Gleeson is a crime and court reporter for The Daily Telegraph.
-
Bobby
- Posts: 17074
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:09 pm
Re: Neville Keating or Paul Chamberlain ?
China responds:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... 01d9c7bdf0
28m ago 15:29
Chinese embassy responds to Dutton speech
A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy has now also responded to defence minister Peter Dutton’s National Press Club address. The spokesperson accused the minister of preaching “his quixotic misunderstanding of China’s foreign policy”.
The spokesperson said:
In his NPC speech, Australian defence minister Peter Dutton continued preaching his quixotic misunderstanding of China’s foreign policy, distorting China’s efforts to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity, misguiding the Australian people on regional situations and priorities, and fanning conflict and division between peoples and nations.
It is inconceivable that China-Australia relationship will take on a good momentum or the overall interest of regional countries, including that of Australia, will be better promoted if the Australian government bases its national strategy on such visionless analysis and outdated mentality.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... 01d9c7bdf0
28m ago 15:29
Chinese embassy responds to Dutton speech
A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy has now also responded to defence minister Peter Dutton’s National Press Club address. The spokesperson accused the minister of preaching “his quixotic misunderstanding of China’s foreign policy”.
The spokesperson said:
In his NPC speech, Australian defence minister Peter Dutton continued preaching his quixotic misunderstanding of China’s foreign policy, distorting China’s efforts to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity, misguiding the Australian people on regional situations and priorities, and fanning conflict and division between peoples and nations.
It is inconceivable that China-Australia relationship will take on a good momentum or the overall interest of regional countries, including that of Australia, will be better promoted if the Australian government bases its national strategy on such visionless analysis and outdated mentality.
-
Bobby
- Posts: 17074
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:09 pm
Re: Neville Keating or Paul Chamberlain ?
Keating responds:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... 01d9c7bebb
Here’s Keating’s full statement:
At today’s Press Club event, Minister Peter Dutton outlined a chillingly aggressive and unrealistic scenario as to Australia’s foreign and defence posture in the region.
A posture which is unremittingly unrealistic and inappropriate to Australia’s vulnerable geographic circumstances.
Peter Dutton is a dangerous personality, who unfortunately is the Minister of Defence in Australia. Peter Dutton, by his incautious utterances, persists in injecting Australia into a potentially explosive situation in North Asia – a situation Australia is not in any position to manage or control, let alone to succeed and prosper in.
As a central minister in the Morrison government, with strategic responsibilities, Peter Dutton ignored and went out of his way to ignore, attempts by President Biden in his recent meeting with President Xi Jinping, to reach some sort of understanding or détente in the relationship between United States and China.
Peter Dutton is all for cheering on the United States as the balancing power in Asia but not for cheering on its President in his earnest attempts to eke out a more sustainable strategic and commercial relationship between the two countries. And while simply not cheering President Biden on, not even referring to the importance or significance of the conversation between the two leaders.
Peter Dutton speaks noisily about the so called ‘cost of inaction’ but is silent about ‘action’ of the kind that the United States is currently and assiduously undertaking.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... 01d9c7bebb
Here’s Keating’s full statement:
At today’s Press Club event, Minister Peter Dutton outlined a chillingly aggressive and unrealistic scenario as to Australia’s foreign and defence posture in the region.
A posture which is unremittingly unrealistic and inappropriate to Australia’s vulnerable geographic circumstances.
Peter Dutton is a dangerous personality, who unfortunately is the Minister of Defence in Australia. Peter Dutton, by his incautious utterances, persists in injecting Australia into a potentially explosive situation in North Asia – a situation Australia is not in any position to manage or control, let alone to succeed and prosper in.
As a central minister in the Morrison government, with strategic responsibilities, Peter Dutton ignored and went out of his way to ignore, attempts by President Biden in his recent meeting with President Xi Jinping, to reach some sort of understanding or détente in the relationship between United States and China.
Peter Dutton is all for cheering on the United States as the balancing power in Asia but not for cheering on its President in his earnest attempts to eke out a more sustainable strategic and commercial relationship between the two countries. And while simply not cheering President Biden on, not even referring to the importance or significance of the conversation between the two leaders.
Peter Dutton speaks noisily about the so called ‘cost of inaction’ but is silent about ‘action’ of the kind that the United States is currently and assiduously undertaking.
-
Bogan
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:27 pm
Re: Neville Keating or Paul Chamberlain ?
Nobody today in their right mind wants a serious war between rival great powers. Nobody in their right mind wanted a serious war between rival great powers in 1939, either. Not even Hitler. Hitler wanted Germany to expand and get stronger through territorial expansion. But although he would have started a serious war eventually, he was not ready for it in 1939, and he knew it. But he knew that his forces were still very strong and that he could get what he wanted by threatening war.
As Defence Minister Dutton has commented, the parallels' between 1939 and 2021 are glaringly obvious.
To begin with, China today is a Nationalist Socialist state. It used to be a left wing International Socialist state under Mao and the Gang of Four. But left wing socialism is an economic joke and it was hardly surprising that China languished and rotted under left wing socialism. Especially the armed forces. Lefties are very suspicious of the armed forces because military men are the sort of demographic which despises left wing socialism, and is much more favourable to right wing socialism. So the Chinese armed forces were a joke under Mao.
Under Mao, China had around 7000 combat aircraft and most of them were post Korean war Mig 17's, which would do nothing except provide easy targets for F-16's and F-15's. Their Army was massive, but mainly consisted of tens of millions of badly armed militia. Their navy hardly existed. But there were hordes of "political officers" in the armed forces, interfering in every way they could, and watching for any sign of right wing rebellion from the soldiery.
Two factors changed China from left wing socialism to right wing socialism. The first was the death of that serial virgin rapist Mao (reported to screw a virgin every night) and the rise of Deng Xoiapeng, who could see the massive benefits of throwing off total state control of the means of production. The second was, the Gulf War.
The Gulf War made the Chinese military realise just how much of a joke their own armed forces were. If the Americans ever got it into their heads to march on Peking, the only thing that would slow their advance was either running out of ammunition, or the practical difficulty in driving over mountains of Chinese dead. The military backed Deng in the same way that the German armed forces backed Hitler.
Just like in Germany when the left wing socialists (communists) and the right wing socialists (fascists) fought for control of Germany, the right wing socialists (national socialists) won.
Xi Jinpeng is China's Hitler. Like Mao, unable to find true immortality, he at least aspires to historical immortality. He is doing this by entrenching his dictatorship and by making his now powerful nation into the leader of the world. Like Hitler, his country is now strong enough to be expansionist, hence the border disputes with every one of his neighbours. In my opinion, like Hitler, he hopes to use the threat of war to expand his nations borders without going to war.
The problem is, that just like Hitler, he may miscalculate. Hitler did not want a war in 1939. After successfully taking back the Sudenland, absorbing Austria, and taking Czechoslovakia, without intervention by the other Great Powers, he truly thought that the French and British threat to go to war with Germany if he invaded Poland was, as von Ribbentrop claimed, simply a bluff. When Britain and France declared war, he was stunned.
My opinion is that Peter Dutton is correct in saying that Taiwan is today's Czechoslovakia. The question is, should we support Taiwan and risk war with China? Or do nothing and perhaps see Taiwan invaded and oppressed? If China takes Taiwan, it will get access to Taiwan's chip manufacturing industry, which is the most advanced in the world. It would also embolden China to keep expanding into the South China sea, meaning the Senkaku's, and war with Japan would be a very strong probability. Japan is already building an airfield and military base close to Taiwan in the Senkaku's. If we get to that stage, we are already in a serious war.
My opinion is that it is better to risk a serious war now then let a very dangerous and expansionist Nazi state get stronger through territorial expansion. Especially if that expansion would add to his empire an advanced and prosperous industrial state like Taiwan. (Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia because of it's advanced industry.)
A strong united front by every major western or westernised nation on earth should make Xi Jinpeng think twice. China is still very vulnerable, despite it's huge armed forces. Like nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it's lifeblood is oil from the Persian Gulf, and that is easily severed in a war situation. Without Australian steel and coal it's economy is in serious danger, and no nation can go to war without steel. It's armed forces are untested and the last time they went into battle (with Vietnam) they got their arses kicked. There must be people in authority in china who look at Vietnam and Afghanistan and who realise that even a superpower can bite off more than it can chew.
If we can contain China and make Xi Jenpeng's promise to take Taiwan a broken promise, then there are forces at work within China itself who already realise that Xi Jinpeng's dictatorship is bringing China to ruin.
China is now the most hated country on earth for it's bullying, it's corruption of local officials around the globe, it's "dept trap diplomacy", it's "wolf warrior" diplomacy, it's violation of the law of the Sea, and it's shameless wholesale theft of fish from other nations fishing grounds all around the planet. To say nothing of the Chinese invented Wuhan flu. It will be a cold winter in China this year without Australian coal. Chinese tourists had 20 years to roam the globe and see how happy the people in the democracies are, and they now must wonder why they can not have a country in which they need not live in fear of their own leaders?
Democracies never go to war with other democracies.
As Defence Minister Dutton has commented, the parallels' between 1939 and 2021 are glaringly obvious.
To begin with, China today is a Nationalist Socialist state. It used to be a left wing International Socialist state under Mao and the Gang of Four. But left wing socialism is an economic joke and it was hardly surprising that China languished and rotted under left wing socialism. Especially the armed forces. Lefties are very suspicious of the armed forces because military men are the sort of demographic which despises left wing socialism, and is much more favourable to right wing socialism. So the Chinese armed forces were a joke under Mao.
Under Mao, China had around 7000 combat aircraft and most of them were post Korean war Mig 17's, which would do nothing except provide easy targets for F-16's and F-15's. Their Army was massive, but mainly consisted of tens of millions of badly armed militia. Their navy hardly existed. But there were hordes of "political officers" in the armed forces, interfering in every way they could, and watching for any sign of right wing rebellion from the soldiery.
Two factors changed China from left wing socialism to right wing socialism. The first was the death of that serial virgin rapist Mao (reported to screw a virgin every night) and the rise of Deng Xoiapeng, who could see the massive benefits of throwing off total state control of the means of production. The second was, the Gulf War.
The Gulf War made the Chinese military realise just how much of a joke their own armed forces were. If the Americans ever got it into their heads to march on Peking, the only thing that would slow their advance was either running out of ammunition, or the practical difficulty in driving over mountains of Chinese dead. The military backed Deng in the same way that the German armed forces backed Hitler.
Just like in Germany when the left wing socialists (communists) and the right wing socialists (fascists) fought for control of Germany, the right wing socialists (national socialists) won.
Xi Jinpeng is China's Hitler. Like Mao, unable to find true immortality, he at least aspires to historical immortality. He is doing this by entrenching his dictatorship and by making his now powerful nation into the leader of the world. Like Hitler, his country is now strong enough to be expansionist, hence the border disputes with every one of his neighbours. In my opinion, like Hitler, he hopes to use the threat of war to expand his nations borders without going to war.
The problem is, that just like Hitler, he may miscalculate. Hitler did not want a war in 1939. After successfully taking back the Sudenland, absorbing Austria, and taking Czechoslovakia, without intervention by the other Great Powers, he truly thought that the French and British threat to go to war with Germany if he invaded Poland was, as von Ribbentrop claimed, simply a bluff. When Britain and France declared war, he was stunned.
My opinion is that Peter Dutton is correct in saying that Taiwan is today's Czechoslovakia. The question is, should we support Taiwan and risk war with China? Or do nothing and perhaps see Taiwan invaded and oppressed? If China takes Taiwan, it will get access to Taiwan's chip manufacturing industry, which is the most advanced in the world. It would also embolden China to keep expanding into the South China sea, meaning the Senkaku's, and war with Japan would be a very strong probability. Japan is already building an airfield and military base close to Taiwan in the Senkaku's. If we get to that stage, we are already in a serious war.
My opinion is that it is better to risk a serious war now then let a very dangerous and expansionist Nazi state get stronger through territorial expansion. Especially if that expansion would add to his empire an advanced and prosperous industrial state like Taiwan. (Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia because of it's advanced industry.)
A strong united front by every major western or westernised nation on earth should make Xi Jinpeng think twice. China is still very vulnerable, despite it's huge armed forces. Like nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it's lifeblood is oil from the Persian Gulf, and that is easily severed in a war situation. Without Australian steel and coal it's economy is in serious danger, and no nation can go to war without steel. It's armed forces are untested and the last time they went into battle (with Vietnam) they got their arses kicked. There must be people in authority in china who look at Vietnam and Afghanistan and who realise that even a superpower can bite off more than it can chew.
If we can contain China and make Xi Jenpeng's promise to take Taiwan a broken promise, then there are forces at work within China itself who already realise that Xi Jinpeng's dictatorship is bringing China to ruin.
China is now the most hated country on earth for it's bullying, it's corruption of local officials around the globe, it's "dept trap diplomacy", it's "wolf warrior" diplomacy, it's violation of the law of the Sea, and it's shameless wholesale theft of fish from other nations fishing grounds all around the planet. To say nothing of the Chinese invented Wuhan flu. It will be a cold winter in China this year without Australian coal. Chinese tourists had 20 years to roam the globe and see how happy the people in the democracies are, and they now must wonder why they can not have a country in which they need not live in fear of their own leaders?
Democracies never go to war with other democracies.
-
Bobby
- Posts: 17074
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:09 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests