Maybe so, but what kind of Crisis might Australia have, especially if the United States withdraws (or is forced to withdraw) into isolation over the next few years, and all US forces are brought home to stay?

Keep in mind how overpopulated Indonesia is.

indonesia would need some form of islamic revolution i think to be considered a possible crisis conflict. a lot has changed there since the days of Suharto. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has been in charge since 2004 and i think he runs a steady ship.

the american military has a presence everywhere from taiwan and the phillipenes to korea to the middle east to europe. so many nations are dependent on US security, infact probably too much so. having said that if all returned home then there'll be spotfires everywhere and apart from the civil war scenario i don't see it happening.

maybe a breakout of conflict in east asia is another scenario. north korea attacks the south, the south retaliates and then china enters on the side of the north. bingo!

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Maybe so, but what kind of Crisis might Australia have, especially if the United States withdraws (or is forced to withdraw) into isolation over the next few years, and all US forces are brought home to stay?

Keep in mind how overpopulated Indonesia is.

One other thing I thought of at work last night (I work graveyard at a convenience store). If the United States' right to exist can be at least partially delegitimized because of our origins as a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant settler society on what had previously been someone else's land, what about Australia?

Originally Posted by myk'87

indonesia would need some form of islamic revolution i think to be considered a possible crisis conflict. a lot has changed there since the days of Suharto. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has been in charge since 2004 and i think he runs a steady ship.

I just hope you're right about Indonesia. Of course, should an Islamic Revolution take place there, I could see them doing the stupid thing, and expelling their Christian minority into Australia (as opposed to trying to invade themselves). Now, while said minority is quite small as a percentage of Indonesia's total population, the actual raw numbers involved would still be enough to turn Australia into a second Philippines, though with a much larger White population than the Philippines themselves have ever had.

the american military has a presence everywhere from taiwan and the phillipenes to korea to the middle east to europe. so many nations are dependent on US security, infact probably too much so. having said that if all returned home then there'll be spotfires everywhere and apart from the civil war scenario i don't see it happening.

I could see us withdrawing our forces from around the world and bringing them all home, if this new Depression gets bad enough to cause the Obama Administration to decide that we can't afford an overseas military presence any more. As for your prediction as to the likely consequences of our doing so, I'd say you're spot on. In fact, I can imagine that a in couple of the Asian spotfires, the use of nuclear weapons would no longer be as unthinkable to at least some of the parties involved as before. And yes, one of those is in the Mideast.

maybe a breakout of conflict in east asia is another scenario. north korea attacks the south, the south retaliates and then china enters on the side of the north. bingo!

Add Japan to your scenario, and you have the other of my 'nuclear' possibilities. After all, China and N. Korea still have a lot of bitter scores to settle with Japan, left over from World War II.

Originally Posted by myk'87

the aussie dollar dropped huge this week, now its half the euro.

everyone's so jittery about money right now, which is funny cos an entire generation of working australians have known nothing but a booming economy and low unemployment. also the word is we're somewhat better placed than most countries in the event of a global recession (or depression...) cos we don't have a government debt and do have some regulations in place. im no economist though so don't quote me on that. of course we'll still be hit hard though. travelling is gonna slow down quite abit, and from that i suspect possibly a more communal sentiment to grow (a poorer economy curtails individualistc pursuits).

everyone is focused on the american election right now, as if our fate is dependent on it, and it probably is, due to the closer ties we've fostered in the past decade (the coalition of the wiling, the free trade agreement).

politically here's how i call it. Rudd is going nowhere fast and i dont see a happy ending for his prime-ministership (too much chattering, too little action). I DO however see Julia Gillard as the big up and comer and possibly the prime candidate for a GC role. hell, she's already clocked up a few weeks of acting PM . most importantly though she seems to be a rationalist and a uniter and i can see those on the right crossing the aisle.

the liberals are rebuilding. they'll most likely collect more states in the coming years (presuming they eventually do find some candidates who aren't weirdos). they ultimately seem like they wanna hang in there till the public turns against labor for a bad economic situation. could be a long few years for them though.

the crisis almost certainly has to be a depression and a foreign war. australians just don't do civil disorder and revolutions. but i guess you never know (what do you think tristan?). maybe we'll be mercenaries for other countries?

another scenario i considered would be if Rudd's emissions-trading scheme was introduced, resulting in all our industries moving offshore to the cheaper and less-restrictive china market, thus severely exacerbating an already perilous economic situation. no way he would do it now though.

Interesting. Can you do me a favor though and describe what party Rudd and Julia Gillard belong to? We in the US of A don't hear that much about Australian politics.

Also, what is your take on the long-standing drought down under? Climate change?

Deployments in much of the world are a vestige of the Cold War. With the original rationale for these deployments gone...with the military already stretched to the breaking point...it is easy to imagine retrenchment. Particularly as the U.S. economy goes belly up.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Deployments in much of the world are a vestige of the Cold War.

Or else left over from World War II.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Interesting. Can you do me a favor though and describe what party Rudd and Julia Gillard belong to? We in the US of A don't hear that much about Australian politics.

Also, what is your take on the long-standing drought down under? Climate change?

sure.
the Labor Party= centre-left stance. currently in power (for 1 year now). Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd, the Deputy Prime Minister is Julia Gillard.

a couple of years ago both were seen as the big up-and-comers of the Labor Party, there was some minor debate about who would get the leadershp role, but nothing cynical. then Labor wins government. since then Kevin Rudd, whilst performing well in the polls, has been criticised for taking too many overseas trips (which leaves Julia Gillard to take an acting-PM role while he's away) and also for a seeming over-reliance on symbolism, words, speeches, commitees and the false illusion that action is being taken. Julia Gillard on the other hand seems to shine in the leadership role. she's a strong performer in parliament, is in charge of both education and employment/workplace relations, and has introduced initiatives in both those roles that required her to stare down resistance from the unions. it tells me she can work beyond party lines, i think that bodes well in a crisis.

the Liberal Party= centre-right stance. currently in opposition (but was in power for the previous decade under John Howard). current (new) leader is Malcolm Turnbull. too early to say how this guy will turn out. When the Liberal Party is in power it has historically mostly governed together with the smaller National Party (a centre-right party for the rural population). This is what we call 'the Coalition'.

Then there's also the Greens (environmental issues, solid left stance), and Family First (a new conservative party which emphasises family values). these two parties are the main minor parties and generally operate in the Senate as a power-balance to try and influence /negotiate government legislation. There used to also be the Democrat party (centrist), but they've died out.


now, Climate Change. Here's the thing, i think its grossly exaggerated. others (including the Prime Minister and most of the media) think its serious. Recently though with the global economy becoming more of a problem, polls are showing climate change is taking a backseat in most voters minds.

but just because im skeptical about CC doesn't mean im not concerned about the environment. But drought and flood has always been around. extreme weather is the norm i think, and climate is never stable (this is the hottest continent on earth, there's a reason why large chunks of it are empty). What is a worry is water shortages, an issue which was neglected for decades and only now is taken more seriously. Then there's the over-reliance on foreign oil and fossil fuels, and i think the sooner we can become energy-independent the better, its good for society

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Deployments in much of the world are a vestige of the Cold War. With the original rationale for these deployments gone...with the military already stretched to the breaking point...it is easy to imagine retrenchment. Particularly as the U.S. economy goes belly up.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Or else left over from World War II.

was it ever rational to start with? Japan has practically no standing army of their own. a US withdrawal leaves them wide open (although South Korea has a decent-sized military).

but take a look at this list here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_military
the largest miliaries in the world. there is one european country in the top 15, and that's russia at number 4. then come germany and france at 18 and 20 respectively. in between you have most of the Middle East (but not Israel) plus North Korea, Vietnam, Thaliand, Indonesia and Burma.

Australia is way down at no 68.

America often gets accused of having ridiculous military budgets. the truth is the US is basically overcompensating for the fact that the rest of the west has largely underspent on the military. If the US withdraws troops its gonna come as a big shock. we fooled ourselves into beleiving that as "civilised" nations we wouldn't need to prioritise the military, because we didn't need to go to war. But thats a pipedream. the reality is that any state that has ever existed in history has needed to be prepared for the possibility of war, cos you can never guarantee peace.

But remember that most of those asian countries you mention generally hate each other, For example china has a huge military and does occassionally threaten taiwan, but they also have to guard against russia, india, and vietnam. Vietnam and thailand's militaries are directed at china, and burma respectively. Also the nato countries generally have more advanced weapons and other war-making equipment.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

But remember that most of those Asian countries you mention generally hate each other, For example China has a huge military and does occasionally threaten Taiwan, but they also have to guard against Russia, India, and Vietnam. Vietnam and Thailand's militaries are directed at China, and Burma respectively. Also the NATO countries generally have more advanced weapons and other war-making equipment.

Speaking of Asian countries generally hating each other, I remember seeing or reading something about the current youth generation in China being brought up to hate the Japanese even more intensely and bitterly than their grandparents did during and immediately after World War II. And China has nukes, as does North Korea.

Upshot: I would NOT want to be in Japan once the last American troops have left for home, from over there.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

But remember that most of those asian countries you mention generally hate each other, For example china has a huge military and does occassionally threaten taiwan, but they also have to guard against russia, india, and vietnam. Vietnam and thailand's militaries are directed at china, and burma respectively. Also the nato countries generally have more advanced weapons and other war-making equipment.

somehow the advanced weaponry thing doesn't make me sleep easier at night. if your enemy is fighting in your own city streets, you can't just aim a big rocket at them. and the rules have changed this saeculum. america had all the worlds most advanced firepower to wipe out north vietnam and still failed. also note how antsy everyone is about civilian deaths these days.

power in numbers definately matters.

now it is true that most of the asian armies are so big because of their animosity towards one another. and outside the middle east, australia has pretty amicable relations with everyone (except burma and north korea). In a crisis though everyone must pick a side eventually. if Japan or Taiwan were attacked they would expect help. The moment one country suddenly fancies themselves as abit of a regional imperialist (like Japan in the 1930's) the other countries will be asked to decide for or against. initially that may just be who you'll embargo out of trade, but military consequences can easily follow on from that.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...86-421,00.html

I bet you that Tristan is wondering why first wave Millennials didn't get this type of action.

The 2002 Bali Bombers were executed in Indonesia this morning.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...-iIuVmPxqVVRXA
they swore vengeance just before their deaths. also this:

Their funerals in their home villages turned into rallies for hundreds of supporters and Islamic extremists bent on jihad or "holy war" with the West, even though the vast majority of Indonesian Muslims are moderates....

...There were similar scenes in the west Java town of Serang as Samudra's body was paraded to the graveyard, shrouded in a black cloth bearing a Koranic inscription in Arabic.

"There'll probably be retaliation. What is clear is that no drop of Muslim blood is free. It has consequences," said Ganna, 26, who travelled from Jakarta to Serang to show his support.

and for the time being Bali is on high alert and tourists asked to stay away until this all dies down. The problem is these guys were given alot of exposure in the media, they wanted to be martyrs but their defence attorneys kept lodging appeals for the last 5 years. It was all very public.

and it is important to note that Indonesia is largely a moderate country, and the mainstream society is vocally opposed to the terrorist cause, though i ponder how moderate everyone will remain if there's a new great depression to ruin our lives.

Originally Posted by myk'87

and it is important to note that Indonesia is largely a moderate country, and the mainstream society is vocally opposed to the terrorist cause, though i ponder how moderate everyone will remain if there's a new great depression to ruin our lives.

Sounds like an excellent pretext for Indonesia to 'encourage' a third, let's say, of Java's population to refugee out to Australia. And given that the Javanese ethnic group all by itself outnumbers the combined population of Australia and New Zealand by a factor of three (soon to be a factor of four),...

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Sounds like an excellent pretext for Indonesia to 'encourage' a third, let's say, of Java's population to refugee out to Australia. And given that the Javanese ethnic group all by itself outnumbers the combined population of Australia and New Zealand by a factor of three (soon to be a factor of four),...

i'd say your jumping the gun quite abit. but there has been a resurgence of the infamous people smuggling trade that got us all those unpleasant headlines back in 2001. the new government has ended the pacific solution (whereby illegal immigrants bound for Australia that were caught in international waters would be processed in pacific island countries). while they give themselves a good conscientious pat on the back, it tells the smgglers that we're open for business once again.

actually it would be alot similar to what would happen if Obama tore down the Mexican border fence. the biggest beneficiaries would be the guys cashing in on sending desperate border-jumpers out into the deadly empty desert.

Originally Posted by myk'87

i'd say your jumping the gun quite abit. but there has been a resurgence of the infamous people smuggling trade that got us all those unpleasant headlines back in 2001. the new government has ended the pacific solution (whereby illegal immigrants bound for Australia that were caught in international waters would be processed in pacific island countries). while they give themselves a good conscientious pat on the back, it tells the smgglers that we're open for business once again.

actually it would be alot similar to what would happen if Obama tore down the Mexican border fence. the biggest beneficiaries would be the guys cashing in on sending desperate border-jumpers out into the deadly empty desert.

As opposed to sending said desperate border-jumpers across a thousand miles of deadly empty (except for sharks and crocs) ocean?

...in a leaking overcrowded boat

well it looks like Labor just lost the green vote. PM Kevin Rudd yesterday pledged to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 5%, well down on the promised 20-40%, but still enough to be a cumbersome financial burden for the industrial and mining sector. so what we have is a situation where the environmental left feels betrayed that the target is too small, and the business right pissed off that they're going to be made to pay for emissions reductions despite Australia's carbon footprint not even being a blip on the screen compared to the rest of the world. (for some perspective, Dubai just announced that they're making the world's first refrigerated beach http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5338099.ece)

a journo summed it up best like this: basically everybody loses except the lawyers and economists who get paid to draw up the plans.

my two cents: this is gonna shoot our economy in the foot at the worst possible time. i doubt the Prime Minister's popularity is going to take a huge beating though, more like a good deal of the shine has been taken off. i can foresee Obama stepping on toes in a similar way further down the track.

Originally Posted by myk'87

well it looks like Labor just lost the green vote. PM Kevin Rudd yesterday pledged to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 5%, well down on the promised 20-40%, but still enough to be a cumbersome financial burden for the industrial and mining sector. so what we have is a situation where the environmental left feels betrayed that the target is too small, and the business right pissed off that they're going to be made to pay for emissions reductions despite Australia's carbon footprint not even being a blip on the screen compared to the rest of the world. (for some perspective, Dubai just announced that they're making the world's first refrigerated beach http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5338099.ece)

a journo summed it up best like this: basically everybody loses except the lawyers and economists who get paid to draw up the plans.

my two cents: this is gonna shoot our economy in the foot at the worst possible time. i doubt the Prime Minister's popularity is going to take a huge beating though, more like a good deal of the shine has been taken off. i can foresee Obama stepping on toes in a similar way further down the track.

How to honk everybody off at the same time, by the same action.

Crazy Fires are raging all around the state i live in, wiping entire towns off the map.
Though weather disasters aren't really related to sociological trends, its still probably timely occasion to bump this thread. I might do a breakdown of generational roles in this calamity.

The Boomers: Who mainly populate politics and the media, try and out-do one another for grandiose sentimentality. Some of it is moving, some of it is just nauseating. Certain morning-news reporters seem to be going out of their way to get well-rating tv shots of people crying. The Greens leader Bob Brown, amongst others had the audacity to use the disaster to rant on about climate change, just shut up please. However the PM Kevin Rudd has surprisingly behaved himself and not overdone it, and seeing Malcolm Turnbull (opposition leader) and Julia Gullard (deputy PM) choke up during speeches in parliament was pretty moving.

Xers: Probably make up the majority of the firefighting force. Keep in mind its a volunteer force made up of people trying to protect their own towns. Its high-risk and little reward, they probably dont get as many glamourous media photo-ops and are less often seen, but people know they're working hard and are thankful for it. They're also typically the parents who had to protect their children with no outside help, as its impossible for firefighters to rescue every single far-flung remote dwelling on their own. sometimes get criticised for allowing the deathtoll to get so high, but such a criticism is neither valid nor fair.

Millenials: Can be most seen on facebook creating groups and rallying one another to contribute money to charity, attend fundraisers and offer shelter to some refugees. Peer pressure at its very best for once.

Homelanders: friends from class have died or are in hospital, parents have been lost or are still missing, and schools totally destroyed at the beginning of a school year. No doubt they'd be yearning for things to 'get back to normal.'

---

in other news, a bailout package of our own. the government gives low-income earners, studetns and the unemployed a one-off payment of $950, which i qualify for $$$$$$. Appropriate? Or should the focus instead be on lowering taxes and the cost of living, and making jobs?

Originally Posted by myk'87

The Greens leader Bob Brown, amongst others had the audacity to use the disaster to rant on about climate change, just shut up please.

Noticed that while listening to the BBC World Service last night. I thought it was nauseating. Typical Boomer looking for a simplistic solution to everything.

Originally Posted by myk'87

Crazy Fires are raging all around the state i live in, wiping entire towns off the map.
Though weather disasters aren't really related to sociological trends, its still probably timely occasion to bump this thread. I might do a breakdown of generational roles in this calamity.

Oh contraire my friend, sociological trends are exclusively to blame for the fires in your state, as well as in the southern and western United States of America. The disasters that are destroying are sadly the bi-product of human habits in habitation that emanate from the soggy sod of England. Australia, or Florida and the western states in the USA are fire cultures: the ecosystems there are fire dependent and the native species there are fire tolerant – even fire dependent for their very survival. Americans, and most other descendents of British culture insist on emulating the “English manner” idiom of town development right down the insistence on a lawn with a complement of deciduous trees for ornament and shade. This is great if you live in England, or New England where the ecosystem is not fire dependent. In fire dependent ecosystems it’s a recipe for disaster.

In Australia anthropogenic fire was an essential element of the landscape and the key to its vitality. Australia’s aboriginal peoples have over 40 words for fire and all of them refer to what we white guys might call “housekeeping”, “cleaning up”, “planting”, “fertilizing”, “gardening” or “repairing”. Anthropogenic fire and natural fire shaped the landscape for millions of years – until the English came. With the English came countless efforts to make right the landscape to fit the English idea of “home” including the introduction of highly destructive weeds and beasties . Concomitant with this invasion came the suppression of fire, considered by the English to be the corporal evil of the devil!

The same story has played out with equal pain here in the USA.

With the suppression of anthropogenic fire of native peoples, and in most instances the natural fires as well, fuel builds. Successful suppression can let it build for hundreds of years. In the Yellowstone fire of the late 1980’s there was on average 125 years of fuel loading to be burned off. The resulting disaster is what you see replaying itself all over the western USA and now Australia as well.

My heart goes out to the victims both in Australia and the USA. My wife’s family has been subjected to the fires of torment in California. However, having said that, I do hope that civic planners, farmers, ranchers, real estate professionals and every resident that lives through these trials will learn the lessons they have to teach and begin listening to the warnings that have been shouted out loud since the early 1980’s. Up until very recently, most have just laughed.

Originally Posted by myk'87

in other news, a bailout package of our own. the government gives low-income earners, studetns and the unemployed a one-off payment of $950, which i qualify for $$$$$$. Appropriate? Or should the focus instead be on lowering taxes and the cost of living, and making jobs?

If I were Rudd I would be pushing massive investment in infrastructure, including a massive solar energy program (come on, it's AUSTRALIA, put those deserts to good use instead of using ungodly amounts of coal!), a circum-continental high-speed rail project, and massive spending on desalination technology.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Oh contraire my friend, sociological trends are exclusively to blame for the fires in your state, as well as in the southern and western United States of America. The disasters that are destroying are sadly the bi-product of human habits in habitation that emanate from the soggy sod of England. Australia, or Florida and the western states in the USA are fire cultures: the ecosystems there are fire dependent and the native species there are fire tolerant – even fire dependent for their very survival. Americans, and most other descendents of British culture insist on emulating the “English manner” idiom town development right down the insistence on a lawn with a complement of deciduous trees for ornament and shade. This is great if you live in England, or New England where the ecosystem is not fire dependent. In fire dependent ecosystems it’s a recipe for disaster.

In Australia anthropogenic fire was an essential element of the landscape and the key to its vitality. Australia’s aboriginal peoples have over 40 words for fire and all of them refer to what we white guys might call “housekeeping”, “cleaning up”, “planting”, “fertilizing”, “gardening” or “repairing”. Anthropogenic fire and natural fire shaped the landscape for millions of years – until the English came. With the English came countless efforts to make right the landscape to fit the English idea of “home” including the introduction of highly destructive weeds and beasties . Concomitant with this invasion came the suppression of fire, considered by the English to be the corporal evil of the devil!

The same story has played out with equal pain here in the USA. http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?p=219093&highlight=fire#post219093

With the suppression of anthropogenic fire of native peoples, and in most instances the natural fires as well, fuel builds. Successful suppression can let it build for hundreds of years. In the Yellowstone fire of the late 1980’s there was on average 125 years of fuel loading to be burned off. The resulting disaster is what you see replaying itself all over the western USA and now Australia as well.

My heart goes out to the victims both in Australia and the USA. My wife’s family has been subjected to the fires of torment in California. However, having said that, I do hope that civic planners, farmers, ranchers, real estate professionals and every resident that lives through these trials will learn the lessons they have to teach and begin listening to the warnings that have been shouted out loud since the early 1980’s. Up until very recently, most have just laughed.

I find it maddening that people build fancy houses on some California hillside dominated by fire-dependent Mediterranean scrubland and then wonder why their houses burn down a few years later.