Wednesday 27th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

unlaborings by the labor party of aussieland....

The Albanese government with their policy is likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States, writes former Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating.

Introduction: Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have been in the US for talks with the Secretaries of Defense and State this week. Australia has pledged to increase the frequency of American troops rotating through the country.

 

The military control of Australia     By Paul Keating

 

Former prime minister Paul Keating is a critic of the Labor Party’s all-in support for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal, and our growing military relationship with the US.

“In defence and foreign policy, this is not a Labor government,” Mr Keating said. “This is a party which has adopted the defence and foreign policies of the Morrison Liberal government. “This is a sellout.”

Mr Marles is in the US and has agreed to allow the transfer of US and UK naval nuclear material to Australia. The partnership also provides for more rotations of US troops to the region, which Mr Keating criticised.

“What he said made me cringe … it will make any Labor person cringe,” Mr Keating said.

“There’ll be American force posture now in Australia, involving every domain.

“This government has sold out to the United States.

“They’ve fallen for the dinner on the White House lawn.

“The prime minister gets the dinners on the White House lawn … [and] these turkeys all fall for it.”

In the interview below, he spoke to ABC 7.30 report’s Sarah Ferguson.

 

 

Sarah Ferguson: Paul Keating welcome to 7:30.

Paul Keating: Thank you Sarah.

Sarah Ferguson: Richard Marles has been in Washington this week. He said American military involvement with Australia is in every domain. Land, sea, air, cyber and space.  What’s wrong with cooperating with an ally deemed indispensable for Australia’s security?

Paul Keating: What’s wrong is that we completely lose our strategic autonomy: the right of Australia, Australian governments, and the Australian people to determine where and how they respond in the world is taken away, if we let the United States and that military displace our military and our foreign policy prerogatives.

Sarah Ferguson: Is it your argument also that increasing American troop presence and broader military presence here makes Australia more of a target?

Paul Keating: Yes. I think we’re now defending the fact that we’re in AUKUS. If we weren’t in AUKUS we wouldn’t need to defend.

Let me amplify the point.

That is, if we didn’t have an aggressive Ally like the United States; aggressive to others in the region, there’d be nobody attacking Australia.

We are better left alone than we are being protected by an aggressive power like the United States

Sarah Ferguson: Why is America aggressive?

Paul Keating: Because it’s going to… it’s aggressive because it’s trying to superintend, from the Atlantic, the largest Asian power – which is China with four times its population, an economy 20% larger, a Navy of the same size – they’re going to try and superintend it as the primary – get this – the primary strategic power in Asia.

That is, 9,000 km from the California coast, facing a country of 1.4 billion, four times their population. They’re going to superintend them.

They’re going to knock them into line…

Sarah Ferguson: Well, the rationale for this has been, since the publication of the defense strategic review, has been clear: that is the rapid escalation, the rapid and undeniable escalation of the Chinese military. Why shouldn’t Australia embrace an alliance that counterbalances that power?

Paul Keating: Because that power has no strategic – no strategic designs upon Australia.  What this is all about is the Chinese laying claim to Taiwan. And the Americans are going to say “no, no, we’re going to keep these Taiwanese people protected” even though they’ve got, they’re sitting on Chinese real estate.

Sarah Ferguson: Although it’s, well let me, let me just stop there on the Chinese real estate. What about Taiwanese real estate and the wishes of the Taiwanese people?

Paul Keating: Yeah, well the Chinese real estate is part of China.

Let me make the analogy. It would be like the Chinese saying, say to us:

“Look we think Tasmania has been forgotten and poorly treated for many years. We want to keep the sea route down the East Coast of Australia through Bass Straight across to Perth and the Indian Ocean open. So we’re going to put some frigates there, and we will economically support the Tasmanian people should they wish to secede from Australia…”

Look, we’d say that’s shocking.  That’s shocking.

Sarah Ferguson: Let’s just stay with Taiwan for the moment.  The Chinese have said that they will, by taking back Taiwan, to use their phrase, they would dismantle all of Taiwanese civil society. Are you prepared to just see all of that gone?

Paul Keating: Taiwan is not a vital Australian interest.

Tasmania would be if it was us. We would fight anybody touching Tasmania.  Like the Chinese will fight anyone touching Taiwan.

See the thing is this Sarah. Get this: the Chinese will fight to the last teenage soldier to defend Taiwan and the Chinese State. And the Americans will not take on such a fight, and more than that will not win it. So we end up being – we get the carry on rights and all of a sudden the Americans take off and leave us and we’re the ones that have done all the offense, you know what I mean?

Sarah Ferguson: Let me just come back to the question I asked though because, as was said, in the defense strategic review this is about responding to – not the only – but one of the primary reasons for the reshaping of the Australian military in concert with the United States and allies in the region is because of the rapid escalation of the Chinese military. So the question is why shouldn’t Australia embrace an alliance that seeks to balance that power?

Paul Keating: We’re not threatened by the Chinese military.

Look, China’s got an economy now, according to the IMF, 20% larger than America. What are they expecting, for them to move around in rowboats? Canoes maybe? You know? So they developed their own submarines, their own frigates, their own aircraft carriers. They are the other major state in the world. And now what do the Americans say?: “tsk tsk, now keep your place, you know, go back to your canoes.”

You know? I mean really…

Sarah Ferguson: But if you were Prime Minister, and you had the responsibility, as you have had in the past, to defend Australia wouldn’t you seek to counter an unprecedented military expansion? Something we haven’t, the size of which we haven’t seen since the second world war by the most powerful possible adversary?

Paul Keating: Australia is capable of Defending itself.

Let’s say, what is a threat? And that is an invasion. An invasion comes in an armada. With satellites today you see the Armada formed, you would see it leave its harbor. You see it for 10 or 15 days come to Australia, and you would sink every one of them on the way.

You don’t need the United States to defend Australia.

Australia is quite capable of defending itself.

Sarah Ferguson: I just want to come back to what you said about Taiwan, because it sounds from what you’re saying that you would be perfectly happy to give up any support of Taiwan, for the Chinese to resume control of Taiwan. You have no objection to that.

Paul Keating: Any military support? Absolutely.

Sarah Ferguson: What about any support for the Taiwanese people who say they don’t want that?

Paul Keating: It’ll get resolved socially and politically over time.  That’s what will happen there. But the thing is it’s not our matter. I mean does anyone want their kids to be shot to death on a sandy beach in Taiwan? Australian kids shot to death on a sandy beach in Taiwan? This is the outcome of such a policy.

Sarah Ferguson: Let’s just go to AUKUS for a moment because there are analysts who say that developments in our, in AI, will make it easier to track large manned submarines and that we should be focusing more on building swarms of unmanned underwater drones. Is that what you’re concerned about, defense betting on the wrong technology?

Paul Keating: No.  What I’m concerned about is us… you see we’re going to get AUKUS, but not the submarines. What we’re going to get is what Kurt Campbell, the deputy secretary of state has said: “We’re going to tie these guys up for 40 years.”

What AUKUS is about in the American mind is turning the suckers in Australia, locking us up for 40 years with American bases all around.

I mean what this report today tells you, they can have American bases all around Australia. American bases not Australian. But all around Australia.

So AUKUS is really about in American terms the military control of Australia.

I mean what’s happened.. I say this.  I say this.  The Albanese government with their policy is likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States.

Sarah Ferguson: Let’s talk about what the Chinese, what China has done. The way you put it it’s as if China is simply on the defensive from an aggressive America. You use the, you used the term aggressive earlier on. But China has territorial disputes of its own with Vietnam, with India, with Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei. Don’t you welcome a countervailing force?

Paul Keating:  The Americans are not a countervailing force. They… look, just imagine this Sarah. Just imagine if the Chinese Blue Water Navy was sailing on the coast of California, stopping off or nearby Los Angeles and San Diego.  Could you imagine the Uproar? Right? But this is what they do every day of the week to the Chinese.

Sarah Ferguson: At the same time there’s a series of countries in Asia, democracies, who could change their countries profoundly, want to, who choose to have and allow to remain American bases in Asia.

Paul Keating: Yeah good on them. But not us. We’ve got a continent of our own and a border with nobody and we’re not likely to be threatened by a soul.

The only threat likely to come from us is because we have an aggressive Ally.  Because of AUKUS.

I mean all of this defensive talk now  – defending us against AUKUS. If we didn’t have AUKUS, you wouldn’t need the defense. You follow me?

Sarah Ferguson: Just to finish, is it your contention as someone who was once responsible for the defense of Australia, that faced with the rapid escalation of the Chinese military, Australia should do nothing?

Paul Keating: No.

Australia should have submarines which protect the littoral waters of Australia. It should have attacking and bomber aircraft to sink ships. It should have self propelled mines. It should have all the things, the modern things that you can keep. Look there’s no way another state can invade a country like Australia with an armada of ships without it all failing. I mean Australia is quite capable of Defending itself.

We don’t need to be basically a pair of shoes hanging out of the American backside.

Sarah Ferguson: Paul Keating, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

 

First published by ABC, 7.30 report, August 8, 2024.  Transcript by Pearls and Irritations.

https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-is-really-about-the-aggressive-american-military-control-of-australia/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

awful AUKUS....

Marles responds to Keating’s AUKUS spray   By Olivia Ireland

Defence Minister Richard Marles says Paul Keating is entitled to his views after the former prime minister sprayed the government’s AUKUS pact saying it risks “military control of Australia”.

During an interview last night on ABC’s 7.30, Keating said the AUKUS partnership is about American terms and is “likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States” and that the US is an “aggressive partner”.

Asked about these comments, Marles said Keating was entitled to his views.

“Obviously Paul Keating is entitled to his view … I’d simply say that we have gone through an extensive exercise of assessing our strategic landscape in a context where we really are facing a very fragile world where the rules-based order is under as much pressure as it has been since the end of the Second World War,” he said.

“What is clear to us is that our strategic objective lies in the maintenance of that rules-based order, given that freedom of navigation on the high seas as an example.”

Asked about Keating’s comment on the US being an “aggressive partner” Marles again defended the alliance.

“Australia has been in alliance with the United States since the 1950s,” he said.

------------

Defence minister details new AUKUS deal, says Australia won’t accept nuclear wasteBy Olivia Ireland

Defence Minister Richard Marles says nuclear waste from the United States and United Kingdom will not end up in Australia.

A letter sent to the US Congress by President Joe Biden yesterday states the AUKUS agreement will allow for the transfer of nuclear material to Australia.

Responding to the revelation, Marles said walking down the path of the AUKUS agreement means nuclear equipment will be provided to Australia but also affirms that we will meet our international obligations.

“Nuclear waste won’t end up in Australia, other than the waste that is generated by Australia. That is the agreement that we reached with the UK and the US back in March of last year and so all this is doing is providing for the legal underpinning of that,” Marles told ABC RN Breakfast.

“So to be completely clear, there is no circumstance in which we will be taking waste from any other country. We made clear in March of last year that we will be responsible for our own nuclear waste and that will involve the disposal of the spent nuclear reactors.”

 

-----------

 

New AUKUS agreement to see US nuclear material transferred to AustraliaBy Josefine Ganko

Keeping with AUKUS and Australia’s relationship with the US, a new development came out of the AUSMIN meetings in the US overnight.

The signing of a new AUKUS agreement will allow for the transfer of US nuclear material to Australia. An earlier version of the agreement signed in 2022 allowed only for the transfer of “naval nuclear propulsion information”.

The detail was revealed in a letter to the Congress by US President Joe Biden, which read:

The Agreement also enables the sale of special nuclear material contained in complete, welded power units, and other material as needed for such naval nuclear propulsion plants. 

Equipment transferred in accordance with the Agreement could include equipment needed for the research, development, or design of naval nuclear propulsion plants, including their manufacture, operation, maintenance, regulation, and disposal, and could also include training, services, and program support associated with such equipment.”

Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles have been in Washington DC this week for the Australian-US Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN) with their US counterparts.

Marles is currently speaking on ABC’s RN Breakfast, so we will have more details on the deal shortly.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-news-live-paul-keating-slams-aukus-calls-taiwan-chinese-real-estate-details-of-planned-taylor-swift-concert-attack-revealed-20240809-p5k0yn.html

 

TIME TO STOP THIS AWFUL MADNESS..........

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

corrupt US navy....

 

THE CORRUPTION OF THE US NAVY

    11 August 2024 by 

 

Shawn Ryan, a retired Navy SEAL and a popular podcaster, recently posted a lengthy conversation with Navy SEAL Captain Brad Geary. It is almost six hours long and should probably be posted on Court TV. Here is the bottomline — The Navy and the Pentagon are fabricating evidence to accuse Captain Geary of a dereliction of duty that led to the death of a young sailor who was trying to become a Navy SEAL. If you take the time to watch the video you will realize why the US Navy and most of the military leadership in other commands are a disgrace. There is no honor and no integrity in the chain of command. And I remind you that these are the same people who will send the sons and daughters of Americans into meaningless, even illegal, wars.

The gist of Geary’s case is this. A Navy SEAL candidate died after Hell Week (the final stage of Navy SEAL BUDS training). When the candidate’s car was searched, a large quantity of illegal performance enhancement drugs (aka PEDS) was discovered. Geary, who was the commander of that unit at the time, tried to secure permission to conduct a search of the cars of other candidates on base who were still alive. The lawyers denied the request. (Geary wanted to do this because he learned that there were rumors circulating that several of the BUDS candidates were using PEDS.)

What happened next — over the course of two years — illustrates the corruption that infects the Navy and the Pentagon. Rather than cop to the fact that one of the SEAL candidates died because his persistent use of PEDS enlarged his heart and compromised other vital organs, the NAVY — the Special Ops folks in particular — tried to cover it up and blame the death on Geary. The story is very involved, but the video lays out the facts in meticulous detail.

This is not the first time that the chain of command in the military embarks on a cover-their-ass strategy and refuse to hold the real culprits to account. You ever heard of the My Lai Massacre? It was back in the news this week when we learned of the death of Lt. William Calley, the lone officer blamed for that horror. Sy Hersh wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning story on the massacre and the military cover up. But Calley was the only one punished. None of the officers who ordered his unit into that village were every punished or held accountable for encouraging the grunt soldiers to behave like rabid animals.

Then there is the case of the Bonus Marchers.

The Bonus Army was a group of 43,000 demonstrators – 17,000 veterans of U.S. involvement in World War I, their families, and affiliated groups – who gathered in Washington, D.C., in mid-1932 to demand early cash redemption of their service bonus certificates. Organizers called the demonstrators the Bonus Expeditionary Force (B.E.F.), to echo the name of World War I’s American Expeditionary Forces, while the media referred to them as the “Bonus Army” or “Bonus Marchers”. The demonstrators were led by Walter W. Waters, a former sergeant. . . .

On July 28, 1932, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hooverthen ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers’ campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

One more example of the military betraying the enlisted personnel, and even some officers who served with distinction in WW I. It is noteworthy that US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler spoke to the marchers and supported their cause. But it was old “Duty, Honor, Country” Douglas MacArthur who led active-duty troops in the attack on those suffering veterans. MacArthur, like a good member of the Deep State at the time, just followed orders and refused to consider the cause of those soldiers who had foolishly believed the promises of Uncle Sam.

The nightmare being visited on Captain Geary could be a preview of coming attractions for my friend, Scott Ritter. Facts do not matter. When any major government institution is intent on saving its reputation, that institution — whether the Navy, the Pentagon or the FBI — has a demonstrated track record of lying and fabricating evidence.

If you think that the decision of the Navy or the Pentagon to conjure up false charges against someone like Captain Geary doesn’t happen, think again. If telling the truth about Ukraine or Iran could cost an Admiral or a General a promotion and a cushy job in the military industrial complex, history shows that they follow the money rather than do the right thing.

Geary’s case is not just about his battle to clear his name. What is being done to him is symptomatic of many of the craven, sycophants that now occupy positions of command in the military and intelligence bureaucracies. This has broader implications, at least in my thinking, to the ability of the US military leadership to actually perform their duties with competence. When you are busy playing politics and covering your own ass, you have no time to think seriously about what a war with Russia or Iran means.

 

READ MORE: https://sonar21.com/the-corruption-of-the-us-navy/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

Keating is right....

‘Stupid’: Nancy Pelosi blasts former PM Paul Keating     By Olivia Ireland

 

Powerful US democrat and former speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi has accused former prime minister Paul Keating of making a “stupid” comment about Taiwan.

Last week, Keating told ABC’s 7.30 program that concerns about China’s threat over Taiwan were unnecessary because the island was “Chinese real estate”.

In a preview clip from ABC, Pelosi said she had no idea about Keating but criticised his statement.

“I think it was a stupid statement to make and I don’t know what his connection is to China that he would say such a thing, but it is really not in the security interest of the Asia-Pacific region for people to talk that way, especially former prime ministers,” she said.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-news-live-fbi-to-investigate-trump-hacking-tom-daley-announces-retirement-20240813-p5k1vv.html

 

 

THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO PELOSI'S CRAP IS THE "ONE CHINA POLICY OF THE UNITES STATES" MEANING THAT TAIWAN IS PART OF CHINA. EXCEPT SINCE BIDEN AND HIS WAR HAWKS (INCLUDING NANCY) HAVE COME TO THE FORE, AMERICA HAS PUSHED TO GET THE 22 MILLION CHINESE ON THIS ISLAND TO CECEDE... OF WHICH ABOUT 10 MILLION WANT TO REJOIN WITH MAINLAND CHINA, WHILE THE REST IS MESMORISED BY THE PROPAGANDA FROM THE PENTAGON....

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

allegedly pelosi...

Nancy Pelosi said of my recent 7.30 interview ‘it is not in the security interest of the Asia-Pacific region for people to talk that way’ – that is, of my remarks in respect of Taiwan.

This is from the former leader of the US House of Representatives who, in a recklessly indulgent visit to Taiwan in 2022, very nearly brought the United States and China to a military confrontation – for the first time since the Second World War.

In fact, Pelosi had to be warned by her president, Joe Biden, and with him, the Pentagon, of the military risks of her visit. President Biden, in strong and public language directed to Pelosi said, ‘the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now’.

But this is the same Nancy Pelosi who thinks my remarks about ‘One China’ – a policy which the whole world recognises as one country, China and Taiwan – are in some way out of line.

Both the United States and Australia subscribe to the ‘One China’ policy and have done so since President Nixon and Chairman Mao met in 1972 to put the policy into place.

And both our countries believe it is in no one’s interest for Taiwan to be subject of some sort of violent takeover. This is why I said on 7.30 last week that Chinese and Taiwanese interests will ‘get resolved socially and politically over time.

That’s what will happen there’.

Obviously, in being asked a truncated question by 7.30, Nancy Pelosi would have been unaware that I had also said that Taiwan ‘will get resolved socially and politically over time’, i.e., between the two parties, without the need of confrontation or violence.

That said, I make this clear. In public comment, I represent the national interests of Australia, not the national interests of the United States nor indeed, the interests of Taiwan. I have remarked a number of times that so-called democratic choices by Taiwan are not central or interests vital to Australia any more than say, the absence of democratic forms in countries like Cambodia or Laos are vital to Australia.

The ABC, as the national broadcaster, would do better to represent Australian strategic interests when it has the opportunity, rather than being excited by sensationalist comment from a person who shares not a jot of identity with Australian national interests.

PJ Keating
13 August 2024

 

https://johnmenadue.com/nancy-pelosi-pot-calling-the-kettle-black/

 

IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE PELOSI BEING INTERVIEWED "SKILFULLY" BY SARAH FERGUSON, ON 7:30/ABC LAST NIGHT (13/08/2024)... NONE (ZERO) OF THE HARD QUESTIONS WERE ASKED.... SAYS GUS: "HOW DID AN 'INTRUDER' GOT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE AND BASHED YOUR HUSBAND?" ANSWER: ALLEGEDLY, THE INTRUDER WAS WELL-KNOWN TO PELOSI'S HUSBAND FOR ALLEGED SEX AND HAD ALLEGEDLY BEEN ALLOWED INSIDE BY PELOSI'S HUSBAND BODYGUARD... THE REST OF THE STORY, WELL-RESEARCHED BY DECENT JOURNALISTS APPEARS ALLEGEDLY BURIED ON THIS SITE... 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.