Australian Political Party fears Chinese Invasion

[Baltenstein]

So the fact that China's wealthy class wants to leave China and move to countries with better education, less taxing etc leads you to the belief that the Chinese state is going to eventually take over those countries?
Such logic.

One day, China will wake up to the fact wealthy people are leaving and ask themselves 'why.' They will realize they have to fix themselves internally and once they do this, China will improve themselves (while gaining superpower status). By then, millions of Chinese will have already left but they will notice China's improvement and want to reunite with the mainland. Look at Crimea and Russia's takeover as a smaller scale example.

Yes, because a government realizing that its country's system is broken will automatically lead to its immediate improvement. That's why no failed states and no corrupt dictatorships exist.
By that logic I could say that Greek politicians will realize that their country is broken and put all their effort into fixing it, eventually becoming super-developed and competitive and overtaking Germany as Europe's top economy and political power. Huzzah! Sounds realistic, doesn't it?
It is also quite interesting that you assume that the loyalty of people with Chinese ancestry will always be with China first and the country they were born/grew up in second. That's like saying that when Germany calls for an Anschluss with North America, 50 million US citizens with German ancestry will enthusiastically oblige.
Of course there are some people, regardless of nationality, who like the country of their grandfathers more than the country they grew up in. But if they feel the urge to reunite with the land of their ancestors, it is common sense to do so by using the nearest airport.
I have no idea where you get the comparison with Crimea from, unless you are implying that Chinese troops without insignia will one day show up in Australia and other countries and hold faked referenderums.

[Keyboard Warriors]

*snips pile of logical fallacies*

How about you take all the strawmen out of that argument, then we'll talk.

Of course, that won't leave you all that much - between one half and one third of your present "argument" - but that's your choice. Until then, don't try to get me to waste my valuable leisure time taking apart your bullshit strawmen - I don't have enough of it to waste on such pursuits.

Nice try, but you don't get to scream "strawman!" and walk away this time. You are talking about an invasion threat that doesn't exist. You want to bolster the military to cover for that threat. I explained to you in detail why the threat doesn't exist; that's not a strawman, that's responding to what you said. Accusing someone of fallacies to end an argument is the lowest of the low, surely you're better than that.

Of course, I can understand why you'd want to walk away now; you've staked your claim on an argument that is literally falling apart at the seams and cannot stand close scrutiny from a logical evaluation, not when you say it, not when the National party say it, it's just a really terrible argument that's based around fearmongering and the misrepresentation of statistics. "We're under threat from the Chinese" gets thrown around a lot after all. I suppose China's military does sound pretty scary when you look at it on paper, it's the largest in the world, it has a huge numerical advantage over us and now China's actually starting to address their primary deficiency, a technology disparity between themselves and the west.

But if we were to look deeper at China, we'd see a nation that has a lot of troops and armor, but no way of bringing them to our shores. China has an enormous military because it envisages in any conflict it will be forced to fight on multiple fronts, including one with Russa, one with Japan and South Korea, one with the South East Asian countries and one with India. China has only ever been interested in securing territory that is in the immediate vicinity of China itself, even the aggressive foreign policy they pursue today reflects this; the new Chinese aircraft carriers are not to challenge the US superiority of the Pacific, they are to reinforce Chinese claims in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. China will not abandon one of more of these fronts to risk an invasion of a country which is thousands of kilometers away from their own territory, that's ludicrous.

The same holds true for Indonesia, and Malaysia, and Thailand. And any other regional power which does not have a friendly alliance with us. Each nation in the region has a military that is not structured for foreign invasions, but for national defense and that makes them harmless as far as we're concerned. Indonesia has a military doctrine based around conflict with Malaysia or a foreign invasion of their archipelago. Malaysia is the same. India is structured around a conflict with Pakistan and China. None of these nations possess any real capacity to project their military power, none of them are capable of landing large numbers of troops across anything larger than small straits, none of them, aside from China, are capable of strategically eliminating military assets.

You keep saying that our military is not capable of defending Australia. Seeing as almost nobody is capable of invading Australia in the first place, that's obviously not true. We do not need a military expansion. Please stop your "we can't defend ourselves" fear mongering. We are one of the hardest nations in the world to invade.

[Tuthina]

If you want to talk about Hong Kong, you might want to get your facts right.

Oh, I mixed it up. The British could have kept Hong Kong Island and Kowloon but had to give up the New Territories in 1997. I don't know why they gave everything up though. A foolish decision financially. I suppose morally it was the right thing to do though since the Opium War and stealing Chinese lands was highly immoral on the part of the British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_ ... _Hong_Kong

There is a reason. It is called PLA. Australia has the benefit of not sharing a land border with China, though, as stated by Keyboard Warriors.

[New Chalcedon]

How about you take all the strawmen out of that argument, then we'll talk.

Of course, that won't leave you all that much - between one half and one third of your present "argument" - but that's your choice. Until then, don't try to get me to waste my valuable leisure time taking apart your bullshit strawmen - I don't have enough of it to waste on such pursuits.

Nice try, but you don't get to scream "strawman!" and walk away this time. You are talking about an invasion threat that doesn't exist. You want to bolster the military to cover for that threat. I explained to you in detail why the threat doesn't exist; that's not a strawman, that's responding to what you said. Accusing someone of fallacies to end an argument is the lowest of the low, surely you're better than that.

You strawmanned me four times that I counted, before I lost interest that is. There may have been more, but as I said - I lost interest in counting at that point. So: Nice try, but you don't get to strawman me constantly, then expect me to keep trying to engage with someone as routinely dishonest as you've shown yourself to be.

Of course, I can understand why you'd want to walk away now; you've staked your claim on an argument that is literally falling apart at the seams and cannot stand close scrutiny from a logical evaluation, not when you say it, not when the National party say it, it's just a really terrible argument that's based around fearmongering and the misrepresentation of statistics. "We're under threat from the Chinese" gets thrown around a lot after all.

Did I say that?

DID I!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

....

Why, no, no I didn't:

The Chinese have already invaded. We just don't realize it yet.

Despite what it may seem like to those reading my earlier comments, I actually don't particularly fear the prospect of a Chinese invasion - our trade relationship is too mutually-beneficial for there to be a point for them. I just think that we need to expand our military (a) in line with the general, ages-old principle of 'si vis pacem, para bellum', and (b) to be able to effectively contribute toward maintaining global peace and security - peacekeeping, collective self-defense etc.

Australia's ability to protect itself from invasion comes under the first; our international status as a member in good standing of the international community from the second.

To date, you've ignored the information I've put forth, misrepresented my arguments then implied that my calling you out on those misrepresentations is a cheap trick to avoid debate. How about you stop fucking lying about what I've said, and actually address what I did say?

Better yet: Don't bother. I've put you on my ignore list, because I don't have the time to try to reason with you when you won't even fucking represent my arguments honestly before "rebutting" them. I don't have the time to deal with dishonest, lying, hypocritical strawmanners such as yourself.

Good day.

[Freiheit Reich]

Oh, I mixed it up. The British could have kept Hong Kong Island and Kowloon but had to give up the New Territories in 1997. I don't know why they gave everything up though. A foolish decision financially. I suppose morally it was the right thing to do though since the Opium War and stealing Chinese lands was highly immoral on the part of the British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_ ... _Hong_Kong

There is a reason. It is called PLA. Australia has the benefit of not sharing a land border with China, though, as stated by Keyboard Warriors.

The Americas were colonized by European powers despite a huge ocean separating them. Don't be cocky and think an ocean is enough to save you against a superior power that wants your land. Spain was much smaller than present day China and yet they managed to colonize a lot of foreign lands in the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... e_Americas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_c ... e_Americas

[Ted Bullpit]

There is a reason. It is called PLA. Australia has the benefit of not sharing a land border with China, though, as stated by Keyboard Warriors.

The Americas were colonized by European powers despite a huge ocean separating them. Don't be cocky and think an ocean is enough to save you against a superior power that wants your land. Spain was much smaller than present day China and yet they managed to colonize a lot of foreign lands in the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... e_Americas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_c ... e_Americas

And we're all still in the Bronze Age? Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on.

[Freiheit Reich]

One day, China will wake up to the fact wealthy people are leaving and ask themselves 'why.' They will realize they have to fix themselves internally and once they do this, China will improve themselves (while gaining superpower status). By then, millions of Chinese will have already left but they will notice China's improvement and want to reunite with the mainland. Look at Crimea and Russia's takeover as a smaller scale example.

Yes, because a government realizing that its country's system is broken will automatically lead to its immediate improvement. That's why no failed states and no corrupt dictatorships exist.
By that logic I could say that Greek politicians will realize that their country is broken and put all their effort into fixing it, eventually becoming super-developed and competitive and overtaking Germany as Europe's top economy and political power. Huzzah! Sounds realistic, doesn't it?
It is also quite interesting that you assume that the loyalty of people with Chinese ancestry will always be with China first and the country they were born/grew up in second. That's like saying that when Germany calls for an Anschluss with North America, 50 million US citizens with German ancestry will enthusiastically oblige.
Of course there are some people, regardless of nationality, who like the country of their grandfathers more than the country they grew up in. But if they feel the urge to reunite with the land of their ancestors, it is common sense to do so by using the nearest airport.
I have no idea where you get the comparison with Crimea from, unless you are implying that Chinese troops without insignia will one day show up in Australia and other countries and hold faked referenderums.

China is working to improve their education and environment while still increasing their economy, a tough balance. They are slowly waking up to the fact that the nation is not perfect (although they are slower to change than would be ideal). However, these solutions are long-term and millions of Chinese don't want to wait 30 years for China's quality of life to reach European levels. Who can blame them? Would they rather live in a crowded flat under gray skies in Beijing or a big house under blue skies in Sydney?

Plenty of Hong Kong Chinese didn't want to return to the mainland but it happened anyways. The same will happen to Australia. Colonization has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. The USA can't even respond with an trade embargo because most of our goods come from China. We need China more than they need us and this dependence is increasing. Besides, by that point the USA will be even weaker than they are today (remember, we lost the Vietnam War and had a stalemate during the Korean War).

All the USA will do is scold China and China will politely nod while behind closed doors they will enjoy a good laugh over some tasty Peking Duck and Tsingtao Beer.

[Freiheit Reich]

The Americas were colonized by European powers despite a huge ocean separating them. Don't be cocky and think an ocean is enough to save you against a superior power that wants your land. Spain was much smaller than present day China and yet they managed to colonize a lot of foreign lands in the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... e_Americas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_c ... e_Americas

And we're all still in the Bronze Age? Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on.

It is one example of how distance doesn't matter when trying to take over a nation.

A more recent example is Japan taking over Taiwan and Korea proving an ocean is nothing to a motivated army:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_un ... anese_rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule

[Baltenstein]

If I were Chinese, I don't know if I would be offended or laughing my ass off. Probably both.

Plenty of Hong Kong Chinese didn't want to return to the mainland but it happened anyways. The same will happen to Australia.

Yes because the situation - A foreign power taking over the administration of a region of China and returning it after the leasing contract expired - is completely comparable!

I wonder what kind of Chinese you have met in your life - probably none - that you think taking over foreign countries (into which they moved to leave China behind, mind) in the name of the Chinese Empire and against the will of the native population is apparently their natural mindset. A 3rd generation Chinese living in Australia who sees that living conditions in his great-grandfather's country have improved wants to live in China again? Of course he will campaign for a hostile Chinese takeover of Australia (Instead of, I don't know, renting a flat in Xi'an or something like that). Who wouldn't? It is the only way.

[New Chalcedon]

There is a reason. It is called PLA. Australia has the benefit of not sharing a land border with China, though, as stated by Keyboard Warriors.

As much as I loathe his grubby, dishonest methods of "debating" (namely: misrepresent your opponent's statements, then claim victory), he does have a point: Australia's primary safety is, and has always been, its isolation. But this is less valuable than it has been in the past, for two reasons:

In general, distance means less than once it did. We can move people and cargo more swiftly than ever before, for longer distances than ever before. For Australia to continue to rely on our isolation and our allies for protection is to place ourselves at the mercy of both, at best sacrificing our agency in international relations as we've done since Federation, condemning ourselves to be nothing more than the unthinking pawns of whichever Anglophone Great Power is biggest at the time...and to be treated as such by our neighbours.

Specifically as regards a hypothetical Chinese invasion, The PLA/N is in possession of significant naval aviation capabilities (with the Liaoning already in active service as a training/instruction aircraft carrier), is believed to be building at least two more carriers (I'd be very, very surprised if they stopped there, given the many reasons China has to build up its Navy as far as it can - not least of which is the absolute strategic requirement China has of at least being able to contest its own coastal waters against the US Seventh Fleet if Beijing wants to be taken seriously vis-a-vis Washington), has presently built and deployed naval variants of the Su-33 (itself easily a match for the F/A-18 that forms the bulk of the RAAF's combat strength) and is rapidly building up the other fleet elements required to support a powerful carrier force in operation.

---

What would I recommend to secure Australia's safety in light of the rapid modernization and expansion of several neighbours' militaries, decreasing US capacity (and political will) to defend Australia in the event of an attack and the ever-tenser mood internationally?

(1) Increase defense spending from 1.6% of GDP (today's value) to the world average of 2.5% of GDP (an increase of $14bn annually in funding). Defense investments are not something you make after someone's declared war on you - they're something you use after someone's declared war on you.

(2) With this money, upgrade the equipment of each branch of the armed forces - replace the various outdated parts of the Army's equipment lists, tell the Yanks to shit or get off the pot as regards new fighters (if they shit, we get F-35s; if they get off the pot, we go to Europe instead), build at least six air warfare destroyers (rather than the three currently planned) and add another two to four frigates to the SEA 5000 acquisition program of eight frigates to replace the Anzac-class. And yes, instead of having the Canberra-class ships (incoming as we speak) kitted out as troop carriers/support vessels, I'd have be what they were designed to be - STOL carriers, to give the RAN some air cover for the times its forced to operate far from Australia's shores.

(3) Additionally, increase and modernize logistical capacity to support, maintain, repair and house all of the above: Expand HMAS Coonawarra and HMAS Cairns to be able to handle at least light repair work for the new destroyers, establish a new naval base at either Port Hedland or Broome to protect the economically-valuable Northwest region, establish several Army bases throughout the northern third of Australia (no more than half a dozen, varying in size depending on the importance of the region they're in) and reopen and modernize RAAF Curtin, Learmouth and Scherger (all unoccupied at current staffing levels). This also means rebuilding the domestic defense industry (particularly munitions building, as in the event of a war, we cannot presently supply the ammunition for all of our weapons).

(4) Once these are done, or the funds allocated to them, start earmarking the recurring funding increases for permanent personnel increases to man all of the above - both the extra combat platforms/units and the bases and support facilities required to maintain them properly. Both fiscal and non-fiscal steps can be taken to make a military career more attractive; one reason the RAN (for instance) is having trouble attracting and retaining good personnel is that RAN qualifications no longer translate to civilian life after the Navy. (In the past, a RAN-trained electrician, for example, only had to do the competency test after leaving the Service to gain civilian qualification. Now, they have to go through the entire process.)

Would these steps attact international criticism? Perhaps - but we'd still be spending less of our economy on our military than Singapore, and it's not like we're trying to become a mini-USA (which currently spends 4.4% of its GDP on its military, nearly twice the world average).

But they'd also attract international praise, or at least respect - from America (which would no longer see Australia as freeloading under the umbrella of their protection, and hence be less inclined to withdraw it in a pinch) to a hypothetical foreign nation considering hostilities (which must now take into account the improved self-defense capacity of the Commonwealth) to our own citizens (who would see that we can and will stand on our own feet, rather than forever being in "Big Brother's" shadow).

What would I suggest we use it for? The first thing I'd suggest we do with our increased capabilities is offer them to the UN as peacekeepers, when the UNSC has authorized such. Not only is this a simple act of good international citizenship (one that reaffirms Australia's commitment to international co-operation and peace), but Australia has an unambiguously good record at such operations - from Cambodia, to Timor-Leste, to the Solomon Islands, Australian-led peacekeeping operations have time and again worked out well for the nations assisted by them.

And, of course, acting in such a measured and responsible fashion will rapidly build up Australia's diplomatic capital both regionally and globally.

[New Chalcedon]

And we're all still in the Bronze Age? Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on.

It is one example of how distance doesn't matter when trying to take over a nation.

A more recent example is Japan taking over Taiwan and Korea proving an ocean is nothing to a motivated army:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_un ... anese_rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule

In both cases, the IJN had prior established unrestricted naval dominance, allowing the Army to move troops over the waters as its pleased without fear of interception or losses.

That, not the distance, is the key factor - distance still matters (for instance, sans an aircraft carrier positioned to provide air cover, a hypothetical PLA/N troop convoy would be so much target practice for the RAAF, simply because the PLA/AF simply can't operate this far from their own bases), but not as much as the ability to move as you please.

If I were Chinese, I don't know if I would be offended or laughing my ass off. Probably both.

Plenty of Hong Kong Chinese didn't want to return to the mainland but it happened anyways. The same will happen to Australia.

Yes because the situation - A foreign power taking over the administration of a region of China and returning it after the leasing contract expired - is completely comparable!

I wonder what kind of Chinese you have met in your life - probably none - that you think taking over foreign countries (into which they moved to leave China behind, mind) in the name of the Chinese Empire and against the will of the native population is apparently their natural mindset. A 3rd generation Chinese living in Australia who sees that living conditions in his great-grandfather's country have improved wants to live in China again? Of course he will campaign for a hostile Chinese takeover of Australia (Instead of, I don't know, renting a flat in Xi'an or something like that). Who wouldn't? It is the only way.

I know, right?

Nativist bullshit - it stinks the same in both Australia and America, it seems. Sadly. By the time you're 3rd-gen Australian, you're Australian. Period. You were born in Australia, grew up in Australia, spoke English at home (as is the case for 98.4% of third-generation Australians), went to the movies with your friends, canoodled with the pretty girls/handsome boys in your class, etc. etc. etc.

Speaking on a generational basis, the vast majority of immigrants mostly assimilate by the second generation, and the third assimilates both more broadly (a higher proportion assimilating) and more deeply (beyond surface-level mannerisms) than the second. I would be willing to bet that - in the extremely unlikely event of an armed conflict between China and Australia - less than one in one hundred third-generation Chinese-Australians would even seriously consider backing their grandparents' homeland over their own.

[Rio Cana]

Panama is around 10% Chinese. But they say Panamanians with some Chinese in them could make up 1/3 of the population.
These Chinese tended to mix with the locals. In the Dominican Republic, which never had a large Chinese population, some early Chinese immigrants over time mixed with the local population.

Peru also has a important Chinese community which makes up around 2 to 3 percent of the Population. They also say that up to 10% of Peru's entire population has some Chinese in them.

Recommend this short video clip which explains it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVMIPnwENr0

Found out many Chinese who escaped Indonesian during the Chinese purge ended up in Peru. Peru lost Chinese to US, Canada and other nations during the times of economic difficulties and much guerilla activities during the 70's and 80's.

[Zhanzheng de Guang]

What would China's motivation be to physically invade Australia when it could instead attempt to economically and socially dominate it, to say nothing of flooding it with immigrants?

I think it's just Sinophobia of that party, tbh.

[Freiheit Reich]

If I were Chinese, I don't know if I would be offended or laughing my ass off. Probably both.

Plenty of Hong Kong Chinese didn't want to return to the mainland but it happened anyways. The same will happen to Australia.

Yes because the situation - A foreign power taking over the administration of a region of China and returning it after the leasing contract expired - is completely comparable!

I wonder what kind of Chinese you have met in your life - probably none - that you think taking over foreign countries (into which they moved to leave China behind, mind) in the name of the Chinese Empire and against the will of the native population is apparently their natural mindset. A 3rd generation Chinese living in Australia who sees that living conditions in his great-grandfather's country have improved wants to live in China again? Of course he will campaign for a hostile Chinese takeover of Australia (Instead of, I don't know, renting a flat in Xi'an or something like that). Who wouldn't? It is the only way.

The lease only expired for a portion of HK, not the whole territory. Deng Xiaoping scared Margaret Thatcher into giving up all of HK. China scared the UK into giving away Hong Kong Island and Kowloon during the 1980's talks (which was not part of the 99 year lease), a stronger China in 2050 can easily take over Australia.

It won't be Chinese-Australians begging China to invade the nation, it will be China taking over Australia and NZ in a rapid invasion. China will be like Japan in WW2 but more cautious.

Japan easily took over southeast Asia. If they didn't mess with the USA, perhaps they would still have domination over east Asia today.

Japan took over Malaysia in about 2 months:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=47

[Libertarian California]

So America gets to spend more money defending another country while Australia's government can focus on improving its economy. That doesn't sound very fair to us.

[Freiheit Reich]

So America gets to spend more money defending another country while Australia's government can focus on improving its economy. That doesn't sound very fair to us.

We deserve it for allowing nations to take advantage of our goodwill and our desire to be the world's police. Remember WW2 and the Marshall Plan? We were even stupid enough to give money to Europe so it could rebuild and compete against the USA in manufacturing. Americans are chumps!

[Libertarian California]

So America gets to spend more money defending another country while Australia's government can focus on improving its economy. That doesn't sound very fair to us.

We deserve it for allowing nations to take advantage of our goodwill and our desire to be the world's police. Remember WW2 and the Marshall Plan? We were even stupid enough to give money to Europe so it could rebuild and compete against the USA in manufacturing. Americans are chumps!

The reason the Europeans, Australians, and Japanese can afford their expensive welfare states is because we practically pay for their militaries. I gotta ask though. What's in it for us?

[Roski]

Its reasonable to be fearful of. China constantly is growing stronger, and aggressive.

While an invasion of Australia is VERY UNLIKELY, its a valid fear.

[Roski]

We deserve it for allowing nations to take advantage of our goodwill and our desire to be the world's police. Remember WW2 and the Marshall Plan? We were even stupid enough to give money to Europe so it could rebuild and compete against the USA in manufacturing. Americans are chumps!

The reason the Europeans, Australians, and Japanese can afford their expensive welfare states is because we practically pay for their militaries. I gotta ask though. What's in it for us?

We can be wherever the fuck we want in 12 hours.

[Emile Zola]

The reason the Europeans, Australians, and Japanese can afford their expensive welfare states is because we practically pay for their militaries. I gotta ask though. What's in it for us?

We can afford our social services because every OECD country pays more taxes then the US does as a percentage of GDP. We fund our services thanks, the US chooses not to help their own citizens. Japan and Germany have small military forces because they lost WWII and the Allies reduced their military. Australia which has fought in every war the US involved itself in is a nation of 22 million our military is fine for the purposes we need. If the US raised its taxes to the level that Europe, Australia and Japan pay then you can afford the "welfare" that our countries have.

[Keyboard Warriors]

snip

Oh please. All through this thread you've repeatedly said that Australia is unable to defend itself and hinted at "a great power" "eyeing off our land". You've even gone as far as to suggest we're vulnerable to sneak attacks. Now, if you don't believe that Australia is under even a remote but realistic threat from these great powers that shall henceforth go unnamed, does that mean you're openly suggesting that we are incapable of defending ourselves from threats that don't exist and you're using this as half the reason to boost our military? And don't bother denying that you said Australia wasn't capable of defending itself and needed to rectify this, because you said it several times even though you conveniently pretended that you didn't with that little quote that you threw in to save face.

Further, this "si vis pacem, para bellum" is nothing more than dangerous bullshit that led to the tensest moments of the 21st century and almost plunged the world into a nuclear apocalypse on more than one occasion. I'm surprised, shocked even that you would suggest this, especially when you then proceed to admit it's going to attract international consideration. Did you perhaps for a second think that such criticism wasn't going to come from our closest neighbors which whom we have a fractious yet crucial relationship? Do you seriously think that provoking an arms race with Indonesia is likely to bring benefits for our country, not perpetuate decades of mistrust?

But anyway, more to the point, you specifically suggested China was eyeing off our land, and now you're denying that you ever suggested we were under threat from a Chinese invasion. Yes, there's a liar here and it's you. Even now, you're still talking about Australia's inability to counter a "hypothetical Chinese invasion". All of my posts were explaining to you (and I tried to be nice, seriously I tried) why a hypothetical Chinese invasion could not (not might, but could) take place and why it wasn't worth considering as a possible defense scenario.

And here, here we have something interesting:

Despite what it may seem like to those reading my earlier comments, I actually don't particularly fear the prospect of a Chinese invasion

So you said this after I first responded to you, as if you somehow acknowledge that you grossly overstated the threat of Chinese invasion, and then proceed to act like I have two heads when I address presumably out the same thing? It looks like we can definitely conclude that I'm not misrepresenting your argument after all.

[Freiheit Reich]

We deserve it for allowing nations to take advantage of our goodwill and our desire to be the world's police. Remember WW2 and the Marshall Plan? We were even stupid enough to give money to Europe so it could rebuild and compete against the USA in manufacturing. Americans are chumps!

The reason the Europeans, Australians, and Japanese can afford their expensive welfare states is because we practically pay for their militaries. I gotta ask though. What's in it for us?

Nothing. That is we need to respect national sovereignty , pull out all foreign bases, and work on our own border protection. All we are doing now is giving money to our enemies while making more enemies (by being in nations where we are not wanted).

Of course, Halliburton stock holders did very well because of the war and the no-bid contract so at least some Americans gained.