7 ms·

As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. With some 'diplomacy', Julian Assange was brought home after near 15 years fighting for BS e

As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. With some 'diplomacy', Julian Assange was brought home after near 15 years fighting for BS extradition charges. The news and politicians in Australia follow almost lock step with whatever our US overlords allow us to say. It's been more of a thing lately with them trying to secure the pacific away from China's sphere of influence and the biggest 'dumb' thing from our government is that silly submarine deal (under something called AUKUS) which is about as good as our F-35 jets purchased (totally useless IMO). There's probably some bootlickers in NZ trying to gain political favour / power by brown-nosing with the US of A.

josefresco 2y ago
In your opinion why is the submarine deal/F-35 program "totally useless" for Australia? Are you saying it's the wrong equipment? Too expensive? Not needed?
- dools 2y ago
  The F35s we have are pretty sweet but we are paying a shit tonne for like 5 submarines that we are going to receive in the 2040s. China already had 10x that many attack submarines. The subs deal stinks.
- tedk-42 2y ago
  Not needed. It's tax payer money down the toilet. But hey I'm a pacifist and will be told that I'm a weak man who will lead to the downfall of civilisation so oh well.
  - scrapcode 2y ago
    Well, ya know - it could be. Not needed until they are... risk management. Most should hope that their weapons are never "needed."
    - defrost 2y ago
      We already had an order in for convential working subs from the French .. now we're on the hook for more money and less of a guarantee they'll ever arrive.
    - lmpdev 2y ago
      They’re still redundant though If we’re heading to regional war, US nuclear subs will be here regardless Even Darwin is a massive permanent US base
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    I'm a pacifist at heart, but I'm not blind to the fact that a single digit percentage of humans (in every country) are just plain evil (in lots of ways). These people can do harm without any feelings of remorse. And a double digit percentage of humanity can easily be manipulated into being / doing evil. Our current, imperfect, civilisation exists because we largely succeed in keeping the whims of these minorities under control. It's a depressing thought, but if I don't accept it, I'll be disappointed in humanity on a daily basis.
    - riehwvfbk 2y ago
      [flagged]
- YounoYouno 2y ago
  All of the above!
- zik 2y ago
  The submarines are almost certainly useless. We won't get them for decades. We're not even allowed to service the nuclear reactors when we do get them. And the technology is already an old one and will likely already be superceded by the new much quieter air-independent fuel cell and lithium battery technologies which other countries are adopting.
  - inopinatus 2y ago
    The whole point of the AUKUS submarine deal is to never get them. It’s a political manoeuvre, an emollient for national security hardliners.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    Air-independent fuel cell and battery powered submarines are not at all a replacement for nuclear submarines, nor even really competing with them. No matter how good the tech becomes, diesel-electric subs running fuel cell AIPs will always have shorter range, less submerged time, and lower speeds than nuclear-powered submarines. Each time they surface, even to periscope level, the chances of detection go up massively. That's why diesel-electric submarines are best suited for coastal defence, especially of small countries, whereas larger countries with huge areas of territory to protect benefit from having nuclear submarines. Whether it's the right decision for Australia to get these subs under AUKUS is a fair debate, but it's not at all accurate to claim that they're using 'old' technology that is being superseded by AIP.
- defrost 2y ago
  All those reasons and more. Strategically bad move, we did okay in the middle. You don’t have to be a Sinophile to know Keating’s right about AUKUS alt-headline: Paul Keating is right, AUKUS will turn Australia into US protectorate The ex-PM is the only person offering a convincing explanation of AUKUS. And it's a damning one. webcache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crikey.com.au%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2Fpaul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%... subscription: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-aust... On the economics | robustness of the deal: This deal is getting worse all the time. Courtesy of the latest details of the AUKUS agreement tabled yesterday in Parliament, we now know that the moment it becomes inconvenient for the Americans or the Brits, there’ll be no submarines for Australia: Cooperation under the agreement is to be carried out in such a manner as to not adversely affect the ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs. Those programs, as even ardent defenders of the program admit, are already pretty degraded. The Americans have shifted from building two Virginia-class boats a year to one this year, and delayed the construction of the next generation of nuclear submarines by five years to 2040. The new generation Dreadnought-class boats under construction in the UK have suffered serious delays and astonishing cost blowouts. Somehow, with around $10 billion of Australian cash, both programs will come good, to the point they can build boats for the US and UK, and for Australia, and help Australia build its own. It’s normal for defence policy to double as heavy manufacturing policy, and Australia has a rich history of wasting billions making things here that we could have bought far cheaper from other countries. Where AUKUS is unusual is that Australia will be using its defence policy as heavy manufacturing policy for the US and UK as well
- throwawaythekey 2y ago
  One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow waters which are not a good fit for the chosen submarine technology and that tactically it makes limited sense for Australia to focus on weapons to be used on our largest trading partner. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-keating-labels-aukus-submarine-pact-worst-deal-in-all-history-in-attack-on-albanese-government https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-... I am not an expert on any of the above.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    They might make sense if in the long term we build out a nuclear deterrent? We'd need a handful of deep water submarines with big missiles on them. Although I expect that it'll turn out they're designed wrong for that or something. Other than that I can't see what situation they'd be useful in practice though. If we get into a war with Indonesia, China or the like that is the end. There will be no winners and we'll either lose or be ruined. One of the lessons in the modern era is if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. I assume we're buying this gear as some sort of realpolitik tribute-style thing for the US military industrial complex. If the point isn't to give them money I doubt we're achieving our goals.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
      > if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. You are absolutely correct. I wish more folks understood this.
      - oroup 2y ago
        Diplomacy works _because_ you have the means to defend yourself. If they can fight and you can’t, why will they bother talking to you?
        roenxi 2y ago
- lmpdev 2y ago
  Not OP but another Aussie I’d sat it’s too good Effectively trading the last of our sovereignty for overkill submarines The threat of China exists yes but I think the French subs we had lined up would have been adequate Especially as the US will likely send their nuclear subs our way when/if Sino-American tensions escalate again I mean we’re effectively already an American outpost with many permanent US bases/facilities
- stephen_g 2y ago
  The submarines are useless to our (Australia’s) national interest. If we ever get them (and even then there’s serious questions about whether Australia would actually have command authority over them), they aren’t really geared to be super useful for defending our shores (taking advantage of our distance from potential enemies) - we’d need more, smaller subs for that. But they do have the extreme range and endurance that would be useful for, say, projecting force into the South China Sea, following the US into a conflict - and that is something the vast majority of Australians are dead against, but what our politicians (at least on the opposition side) have basically already pledged to do…
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  I would think it isn't needed. Australia is a leading country for R&D and they have the money to fund their own designs.
timmg 2y ago
> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Not an expert, but my guess is that there is (probably valid) concern about China. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.
- zerkten 2y ago
  China is a concern for Australia whether the US is in the picture or not. Australia's interests are highly aligned with those of the US. The increased engagement from the US is being welcomed by most Australians, but the issue is really around the implementation. AUKUS is one of these huge deals with the results coming many years after huge investments creating great uncertainty. That makes it easy to attack politically. EDIT: What's missed by the original commenter is that Australia was already investing in submarines from France. If delivered, there would be similar outcomes. The project had just as much uncertainty around it and was off-track when AUKUS was announced.
  - stephen_g 2y ago
    The political class, yes, welcome the engagement. But not most Australians!
    - evgen 2y ago
      A claim that is categorically untrue and easily disproven. It takes less than ten seconds to google up multiple surveys that show the opinions of the Australian public. The most recent broad survey was conducted less than a month ago, but before Biden dropped out when it appeared Trump was likely to win the upcoming presidential election (relevant fact because the question was asked and answered regarding whether another Trump presidency would diminish support for the US.) Several key take-aways from this survey show: - 80%+ said close ties with the US was important to AU security - 70%+ named China as a security threat to AU - 55%+ stated confidence in the US acting responsibly in the world There are other similar points if interest in the survey but the facts are quite clear that Australians do welcome more engagement with the US and see it is a counter to Chinese threats in the region.
olalonde 2y ago
> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Australia and New Zealand have extradition treaties with dozens of countries, it's not just a US thing.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
There would be less external influence in the latter case if the US wasn’t your main form of military and arms supplier.
chx 2y ago
[flagged]
- wesammikhail 2y ago
  The funny thing about what you just said is that it has nothing to do with the parent comment. He's talking about BS extradition charges due to global political influence, and your response is: RUN CHARACTER_ASSASSINATION.EXE I must say, your statement was so profound and effective that you've totally convinced me. Assange is a piece of shit and therefore we should do away with all laws and cater to the whim of your tribe. ...Sigh...
- rendall 2y ago
  Well, for the sake of argument, assume everything you say is true. I think it's not true but let's roll with it. Still, the USA attempted to extradite a foreign national for an act that is only a crime in the US but nowhere else, that occurred on foreign soil. Further, the charges were retaliation for activity that is legally protected in the USA but annoyed powerful people. Aren't you at all concerned by that egregious overreach? It's un-American if you're an American patriot and alarming if you're not.
- kobalsky 2y ago
  I give him the benefit of the doubt since I'm not immune to propaganda and he was an obvious target for character assassination.
  - chx 2y ago
    > Manning told the court that, during her interaction with WikiLeaks on IRC and Jabber, she developed a friendship with someone there, believed to be Julian Assange (although neither knew the other's name), which she said made her feel she could be herself When this came out, everything about Assange was made clear. It's just textbook, take someone who is in a mental health crisis, pretend to be kind, you can do anything to them -- and Assange indeed did. Assange became famous, Chelsea went to prison. When he decided to skip the materials damaging to Russia and published the materials on Clinton, that's when we knew his affiliation. We didn't need Pussy Riot to tell us -- although they sure did, just in case someone missed the obvious. These are facts. This is not character assassination. About him being rapist I was clear is not necessarily true. That might be character assassination indeed.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Terretta 2y ago
> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. You got our attention by filling all our streaming channels with your shows. As is common in the international film and television sector, a key driver of Australia’s ongoing production upswing came from an enhancement to its incentive schemes. In July, the country’s national government increased the location offset program in its annual budget from 16.5 percent to 30 percent. Thanks to those changes, films spending at least A$20 million dollars (about $13 million U.S. dollars) in the country can claim back 30 percent of all expenditures on goods and services upon completion of the project. Previously, it often was [already] possible for especially savvy producers to add to the guaranteed 16.5 percent offset and bring total support to 30 percent by cobbling together prior grant schemes — but the increases introduced last year provided global producers with a much-needed sense of ease and surety. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/planet-of-the-apes-godzilla-x-kong-australia-1235898822/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/planet-o...
thinkingtoilet 2y ago
Don't forget the Aussie influence on the US. Murdoch is Australian.
kmeisthax 2y ago
>As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Fox News is an Australian product built to flood the US with far-right, pro-business outrage. We'll get out of your lane once you get out of ours. All kidding aside, describing these sorts of things in terms of national influence is extremely unproductive. New Zealand wouldn't be turning itself into a pro-commercial-pirate haven or anticopyright haven but for the influence of the US[1]. The question regarding extradition is not "should we consider what Kim Dotcom did to be a crime[0]" but "do we abduct him to another jurisdiction to face trial." It's bikeshedding over the color of the wood on the electric chair. [0] In general, extradition treaties only apply for acts that are crimes in both jurisdictions. [1] Even China's pro-copyright, they just don't want to pay America for any of it. If they were anti-copyright they'd be freely sharing all the "IP" they keep stealing.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > Fox News is an Australian product lol, no it isn't. Don't try and pass the buck. Murdoch is a US citizen and has been since the 80s. Fox news is purely and always has been an AMERICAN product, regardless of the birth citizenship of the CEO of News corp.
wordofx 2y ago
> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. No you’re not. You’re seeing more TikTok influence but not US influence.
ruthmarx 2y ago
> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Look at Sky News Australia, literally all they talk about is US politics. My theory is that as US focus shifts to East Asia, Australia is being groomed as a proxy state. Not as a deliberate effort, just as a consequence of a lot of different things coalescing. It's kind of interesting to see.

josefresco 2y ago

In your opinion why is the submarine deal/F-35 program "totally useless" for Australia? Are you saying it's the wrong equipment? Too expensive? Not needed?

dools 2y ago
The F35s we have are pretty sweet but we are paying a shit tonne for like 5 submarines that we are going to receive in the 2040s. China already had 10x that many attack submarines. The subs deal stinks.
tedk-42 2y ago
Not needed. It's tax payer money down the toilet. But hey I'm a pacifist and will be told that I'm a weak man who will lead to the downfall of civilisation so oh well.
- scrapcode 2y ago
  Well, ya know - it could be. Not needed until they are... risk management. Most should hope that their weapons are never "needed."
  - defrost 2y ago
    We already had an order in for convential working subs from the French .. now we're on the hook for more money and less of a guarantee they'll ever arrive.
  - lmpdev 2y ago
    They’re still redundant though If we’re heading to regional war, US nuclear subs will be here regardless Even Darwin is a massive permanent US base
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  I'm a pacifist at heart, but I'm not blind to the fact that a single digit percentage of humans (in every country) are just plain evil (in lots of ways). These people can do harm without any feelings of remorse. And a double digit percentage of humanity can easily be manipulated into being / doing evil. Our current, imperfect, civilisation exists because we largely succeed in keeping the whims of these minorities under control. It's a depressing thought, but if I don't accept it, I'll be disappointed in humanity on a daily basis.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    [flagged]
YounoYouno 2y ago
All of the above!
zik 2y ago
The submarines are almost certainly useless. We won't get them for decades. We're not even allowed to service the nuclear reactors when we do get them. And the technology is already an old one and will likely already be superceded by the new much quieter air-independent fuel cell and lithium battery technologies which other countries are adopting.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  The whole point of the AUKUS submarine deal is to never get them. It’s a political manoeuvre, an emollient for national security hardliners.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  Air-independent fuel cell and battery powered submarines are not at all a replacement for nuclear submarines, nor even really competing with them. No matter how good the tech becomes, diesel-electric subs running fuel cell AIPs will always have shorter range, less submerged time, and lower speeds than nuclear-powered submarines. Each time they surface, even to periscope level, the chances of detection go up massively. That's why diesel-electric submarines are best suited for coastal defence, especially of small countries, whereas larger countries with huge areas of territory to protect benefit from having nuclear submarines. Whether it's the right decision for Australia to get these subs under AUKUS is a fair debate, but it's not at all accurate to claim that they're using 'old' technology that is being superseded by AIP.
defrost 2y ago
All those reasons and more. Strategically bad move, we did okay in the middle. You don’t have to be a Sinophile to know Keating’s right about AUKUS alt-headline: Paul Keating is right, AUKUS will turn Australia into US protectorate The ex-PM is the only person offering a convincing explanation of AUKUS. And it's a damning one. webcache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crikey.com.au%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2Fpaul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance%2F https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%... subscription: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-australia-us-alliance/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-aust... On the economics | robustness of the deal: This deal is getting worse all the time. Courtesy of the latest details of the AUKUS agreement tabled yesterday in Parliament, we now know that the moment it becomes inconvenient for the Americans or the Brits, there’ll be no submarines for Australia: Cooperation under the agreement is to be carried out in such a manner as to not adversely affect the ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs. Those programs, as even ardent defenders of the program admit, are already pretty degraded. The Americans have shifted from building two Virginia-class boats a year to one this year, and delayed the construction of the next generation of nuclear submarines by five years to 2040. The new generation Dreadnought-class boats under construction in the UK have suffered serious delays and astonishing cost blowouts. Somehow, with around $10 billion of Australian cash, both programs will come good, to the point they can build boats for the US and UK, and for Australia, and help Australia build its own. It’s normal for defence policy to double as heavy manufacturing policy, and Australia has a rich history of wasting billions making things here that we could have bought far cheaper from other countries. Where AUKUS is unusual is that Australia will be using its defence policy as heavy manufacturing policy for the US and UK as well
throwawaythekey 2y ago
One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow waters which are not a good fit for the chosen submarine technology and that tactically it makes limited sense for Australia to focus on weapons to be used on our largest trading partner. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-keating-labels-aukus-submarine-pact-worst-deal-in-all-history-in-attack-on-albanese-government https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-... I am not an expert on any of the above.
- roenxi 2y ago
  They might make sense if in the long term we build out a nuclear deterrent? We'd need a handful of deep water submarines with big missiles on them. Although I expect that it'll turn out they're designed wrong for that or something. Other than that I can't see what situation they'd be useful in practice though. If we get into a war with Indonesia, China or the like that is the end. There will be no winners and we'll either lose or be ruined. One of the lessons in the modern era is if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. I assume we're buying this gear as some sort of realpolitik tribute-style thing for the US military industrial complex. If the point isn't to give them money I doubt we're achieving our goals.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    > if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. You are absolutely correct. I wish more folks understood this.
    - oroup 2y ago
      Diplomacy works _because_ you have the means to defend yourself. If they can fight and you can’t, why will they bother talking to you?
      - roenxi 2y ago
lmpdev 2y ago
Not OP but another Aussie I’d sat it’s too good Effectively trading the last of our sovereignty for overkill submarines The threat of China exists yes but I think the French subs we had lined up would have been adequate Especially as the US will likely send their nuclear subs our way when/if Sino-American tensions escalate again I mean we’re effectively already an American outpost with many permanent US bases/facilities
stephen_g 2y ago
The submarines are useless to our (Australia’s) national interest. If we ever get them (and even then there’s serious questions about whether Australia would actually have command authority over them), they aren’t really geared to be super useful for defending our shores (taking advantage of our distance from potential enemies) - we’d need more, smaller subs for that. But they do have the extreme range and endurance that would be useful for, say, projecting force into the South China Sea, following the US into a conflict - and that is something the vast majority of Australians are dead against, but what our politicians (at least on the opposition side) have basically already pledged to do…
ruthmarx 2y ago
I would think it isn't needed. Australia is a leading country for R&D and they have the money to fund their own designs.

timmg 2y ago

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Not an expert, but my guess is that there is (probably valid) concern about China. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

zerkten 2y ago
China is a concern for Australia whether the US is in the picture or not. Australia's interests are highly aligned with those of the US. The increased engagement from the US is being welcomed by most Australians, but the issue is really around the implementation. AUKUS is one of these huge deals with the results coming many years after huge investments creating great uncertainty. That makes it easy to attack politically. EDIT: What's missed by the original commenter is that Australia was already investing in submarines from France. If delivered, there would be similar outcomes. The project had just as much uncertainty around it and was off-track when AUKUS was announced.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  The political class, yes, welcome the engagement. But not most Australians!
  - evgen 2y ago
    A claim that is categorically untrue and easily disproven. It takes less than ten seconds to google up multiple surveys that show the opinions of the Australian public. The most recent broad survey was conducted less than a month ago, but before Biden dropped out when it appeared Trump was likely to win the upcoming presidential election (relevant fact because the question was asked and answered regarding whether another Trump presidency would diminish support for the US.) Several key take-aways from this survey show: - 80%+ said close ties with the US was important to AU security - 70%+ named China as a security threat to AU - 55%+ stated confidence in the US acting responsibly in the world There are other similar points if interest in the survey but the facts are quite clear that Australians do welcome more engagement with the US and see it is a counter to Chinese threats in the region.

olalonde 2y ago

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Australia and New Zealand have extradition treaties with dozens of countries, it's not just a US thing.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago

There would be less external influence in the latter case if the US wasn’t your main form of military and arms supplier.

chx 2y ago

[flagged]

wesammikhail 2y ago
The funny thing about what you just said is that it has nothing to do with the parent comment. He's talking about BS extradition charges due to global political influence, and your response is: RUN CHARACTER_ASSASSINATION.EXE I must say, your statement was so profound and effective that you've totally convinced me. Assange is a piece of shit and therefore we should do away with all laws and cater to the whim of your tribe. ...Sigh...
rendall 2y ago
Well, for the sake of argument, assume everything you say is true. I think it's not true but let's roll with it. Still, the USA attempted to extradite a foreign national for an act that is only a crime in the US but nowhere else, that occurred on foreign soil. Further, the charges were retaliation for activity that is legally protected in the USA but annoyed powerful people. Aren't you at all concerned by that egregious overreach? It's un-American if you're an American patriot and alarming if you're not.
kobalsky 2y ago
I give him the benefit of the doubt since I'm not immune to propaganda and he was an obvious target for character assassination.
- chx 2y ago
  > Manning told the court that, during her interaction with WikiLeaks on IRC and Jabber, she developed a friendship with someone there, believed to be Julian Assange (although neither knew the other's name), which she said made her feel she could be herself When this came out, everything about Assange was made clear. It's just textbook, take someone who is in a mental health crisis, pretend to be kind, you can do anything to them -- and Assange indeed did. Assange became famous, Chelsea went to prison. When he decided to skip the materials damaging to Russia and published the materials on Clinton, that's when we knew his affiliation. We didn't need Pussy Riot to tell us -- although they sure did, just in case someone missed the obvious. These are facts. This is not character assassination. About him being rapist I was clear is not necessarily true. That might be character assassination indeed.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Terretta 2y ago

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. You got our attention by filling all our streaming channels with your shows. As is common in the international film and television sector, a key driver of Australia’s ongoing production upswing came from an enhancement to its incentive schemes. In July, the country’s national government increased the location offset program in its annual budget from 16.5 percent to 30 percent. Thanks to those changes, films spending at least A$20 million dollars (about $13 million U.S. dollars) in the country can claim back 30 percent of all expenditures on goods and services upon completion of the project. Previously, it often was [already] possible for especially savvy producers to add to the guaranteed 16.5 percent offset and bring total support to 30 percent by cobbling together prior grant schemes — but the increases introduced last year provided global producers with a much-needed sense of ease and surety. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/planet-of-the-apes-godzilla-x-kong-australia-1235898822/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/planet-o...

thinkingtoilet 2y ago

Don't forget the Aussie influence on the US. Murdoch is Australian.

kmeisthax 2y ago

>As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Fox News is an Australian product built to flood the US with far-right, pro-business outrage. We'll get out of your lane once you get out of ours. All kidding aside, describing these sorts of things in terms of national influence is extremely unproductive. New Zealand wouldn't be turning itself into a pro-commercial-pirate haven or anticopyright haven but for the influence of the US[1]. The question regarding extradition is not "should we consider what Kim Dotcom did to be a crime[0]" but "do we abduct him to another jurisdiction to face trial." It's bikeshedding over the color of the wood on the electric chair. [0] In general, extradition treaties only apply for acts that are crimes in both jurisdictions. [1] Even China's pro-copyright, they just don't want to pay America for any of it. If they were anti-copyright they'd be freely sharing all the "IP" they keep stealing.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> Fox News is an Australian product lol, no it isn't. Don't try and pass the buck. Murdoch is a US citizen and has been since the 80s. Fox news is purely and always has been an AMERICAN product, regardless of the birth citizenship of the CEO of News corp.

wordofx 2y ago

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. No you’re not. You’re seeing more TikTok influence but not US influence.

ruthmarx 2y ago

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region. Look at Sky News Australia, literally all they talk about is US politics. My theory is that as US focus shifts to East Asia, Australia is being groomed as a proxy state. Not as a deliberate effort, just as a consequence of a lot of different things coalescing. It's kind of interesting to see.