Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting, Rule 303

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • grum
    replied
    Just some more clarification on the U.S. wheat situation.

    - during the cold war, the U.S. wanted to ensure that it had lots of food on hand, and food producing capability in the event of war. How to do that? Lots of gov't money to promote production and then buy the surplus production.

    - What to do with the surplus? Store some for domestic use and then use the remainder as a foreign policy tool (ie. help us out and get cheap wheat)

    - During this process, politicians discovered that a healthy farm economy is good politics (it is much easier to "buy" senate/congress seats in North Dakota then New York, as almost everyone is a farmer)so the money kept flowing.

    - Can Canada and Australia(as wheat exporters) compete against the U.S. treasury? No and that frustrates farmers as they want to compete on a farmer to farmer basis not a farmer to U.S. treasury basis. Out of this frustration comes the World Trade Organization and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is an attempt to remove the above mentioned politics from trade and have a clearly defined set of rules, but everyone is looking out for #1, so it is a long slow process.
    Hope this clarifies things for people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Niteshift
    replied
    "Makes we wonder why those who are 'offended' by my satirical wit and colloquealism have never bothered to e-mail me, but instead chose to e-mail moderators. Hey, if you got a drama with me, please tell me so, 'cos if you don't, then I wont' know."

    Contrary to what you've said, members should feel free to contact staff members if they have problems.

    BTW Rule, I haven't heard back from you yet.


    ------------------
    Niteshift-
    Perseverate In Pugna

    Leave a comment:


  • copitsweet
    replied
    100% mate !!!!!! Me too!!!!!

    Maybe our satire is too sharp and our colloquialisms too vague.


    Originally posted by Rule.303:

    But beyond all, I must state, I am not trying to make any arguments here. I am pointing out that I am NOT against Americans. I can only assume that when I speak of anything that the US Govt may be doing, That is what is perceived as being anti-US.
    But having said that, can someone please enlighten me as to what I am alleged to have said that has been regarded as anti american. I keep getting told that i have said things, but am yet to be told what I have said. I am so far only told this second hand. Makes we wonder why those who are 'offended' by my satirical wit and colloquealism have never bothered to e-mail me, but instead chose to e-mail moderators. Hey, if you got a drama with me, please tell me so, 'cos if you don't, then I wont' know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rule.303
    replied
    Patrick said Sure, you all were helping out the war effort, but when your northern ports got bombed, most of your troops were recalled back home (an action your PM got chastized by Churchill for). So much for helping the rest of the world, huh?

    Just to clarify, Churchill did not allow Australian soldier to return to defend it's own shore. Churchill instead, created 3 strategic lines across Australia. They were the Berrimah Line, The Brisbane Line and The Broken Hill Line. Churchill's strategy was to do nothing and allow the Japanese to reach the Berrimah Line (100 kilometres inland at the North.. In other words, Churchill was prepared to allow Australia to be invaded), The second Strategy was to attack their supplies till they reached the Brisbane line (The top half of Australia), then allow them to proceed to the Broken Hill line (the top 3/4 of Australia) then fight an overexteneded an weakened enemy. Sounds like a great strategy, but not if you are one of the poor mongrels getting slaughtered by the enemy while you wait for Churchills strategy to come into being.

    So Darwin gets Bombed by the Japs during 63 seperate Air Raids over several months, Japs land at Geraldton and Derby in Western Australia. Japs bomb Townsville, Cairns, Coen, Wyndam, Derby then send mini-subs up Sydney harbour, sink every merchant ship coming or going from Australia's eastern ports, and yet, Churchill refuses to release any Aussie soldiers to defend their own country.
    When Japan invaded New Guinea (large island north of Australia, some 50 miles from it's most southern tip to Australia's most northern tip), Australia could only send volunteers. These were untrained and often senior aged men and women. I've met a few of these galant people who have told me stories of some of the volunteers being aged in their late 50's. For many weeks the Volunteers held back the Japanese advance until Churchill finally woke up to himself and allowed some Aussies to return. (a mere 3,000 from the European war theatre). Australia appealed to the US for assistance (which was given and appreciated) since Churchill refused to release the aussies.
    As for the comment "so much for helping the rest of the world". I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. But Australians fought in all Eurpoean, African and middle eastern countries against the Germans and their allies. Aussie also fought the Japs in every asian country (except china) which the Emporor Hiro Hito chose to invade.

    Patrick said - I personally don't like having to be the world's police force in every UN action. Maybe you all in Australia should volunteer to do more than you do. I guess you can call me a bit of an isolationist, but if some tribes in Africa want to go to war with each other, I don't believe that our dedicated troops should be going into harms way. It's not our problem. I'd be interested to see the number of US troops in international UN actions...I bet it far outweighs the numbers of Australian troops.

    Australia sent Peace Keepers to Rwanda after New Zealand. Then the other UN countries arrived simaltaneously.
    The comment of "Maybe you all in Australia should volunteer to do more than you do", .Truth of the matter is that Australia has been to almost every conflict in the world during lasy 100 years. I read the figure somewhere it was something like 87% of wars and civil hostilities. As for US outweighing the number of Aussie military, that goes without saying. However, Australia has a military force of a mere 85,000 personell. We sent 2,500 men and women to Rwanda, which is of course over 5% of our military. Numbers aren't important. The importance is being there for the saftey and security of other people. In the Gulf War, Germany sent only 5 pilots, that's all. Japan gave money, Israel gave medicine and so on.

    I end with this quote... "All it takes for evil to conquer this world, is for good men to do nothing".

    [This message has been edited by Rule.303 (edited 06-02-2001).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Mitzi
    replied
    Why is it so important that we know who fired the first shot or died first?
    Isn't it just more inportant to know that many lives were saved by people from other countries caring?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rule.303
    replied
    Regarding the US Media reporting on the Gulf. Being that I was living in the US during that time, the only media I had access to was that of US of course.
    The media only reported what the US was doing in the Gulf. It was not until a British pilot was shot down and captured, that I became aware of other countries being involved. It was not till I got a letter from family in Australia, that I realised that Aussie went there. In fact the US media stated that the US fired the first shots. Some months later, I was reading a US news magaizine like Time or The Bulletin or whatever it was called. There is a length story about the securing of the oil fields. Story told of how the Australian SAS snuck into Iraq some 5 weeks before the first shots were fired and secured the fields as best they could. As you know, Saddam then ordered the Fields be set alight. According to the story, Aussie SAS reduced the fire lighting by some 60%.
    On returning to Australia, I found that the first shots fired were from an Aussie Naval Ship. This was reported by the US owned Asian News broadcaster, AsiaCNN in a lengthy look back at the conflict. As it turned out according to Asia CNN, the US was one of the last countries to become involved.
    But as stated earlier, it does not matter who was first, last, biggest or smallest. It does matter when the US media incorrectly reports the News. Initial reports from US media directly stated "US fires the first shots". As I said, it does not matter who is first or last, but to claim something that is not true is therefore misleading.
    As someone else indicated about the US and WW2, what was the US doing before joining in?. I know that the US had not yet established the high industrial factor required to maintain a large military effort. I know that US continued to trade with Italy, Germany and Japan. In the weeks leading up to Pearl Harbours bombing, the US ceased trading with Japan.

    But beyond all, I must state, I am not trying to make any arguments here. I am pointing out that I am NOT against Americans. I can only assume that when I speak of anything that the US Govt may be doing, That is what is perceived as being anti-US.
    But having said that, can someone please enlighten me as to what I am alleged to have said that has been regarded as anti american. I keep getting told that i have said things, but am yet to be told what I have said. I am so far only told this second hand. Makes we wonder why those who are 'offended' by my satirical wit and colloquealism have never bothered to e-mail me, but instead chose to e-mail moderators. Hey, if you got a drama with me, please tell me so, 'cos if you don't, then I wont' know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rule.303
    replied
    Just a quick note at this stage...

    To Patrick. I did not say in my post that Australian was selling wheat to US. As far as I am aware, we never have.
    What I said was that the US subsidised wheat became a cheaper product than what Australia was able to offer. It was a case of the likes of Russia and China stopped buying Australiam wheat in favour of the American wheat. I'm not in a position to quote exact figures, but I will describe in like this... Australia sold it's wheat for say $10 a unit, while the American price was say $15 a unit. America then buys the wheat from the farmers at $15 a unit and then sells it to countries which Australia was exclusively providing, but for only $3 a unit. Australia could not compete. Prior to subsidies, US wheat produces say 100,000 units, after subsidies, this goes triple because the Government has created a false market and so US now has oversurplus of wheat which they then look to other markets. More former Australian customers turn to US wheat, more US farmers grow wheat. It got the point that the oversurplus of US wheat was so great, that the Govt then began to dump it along the edges of highways, and in some cases, crushed it and mixed it with coal dust to run electrical power plants.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teton
    replied
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by grum:
    Getting into a ****ing contest over this issue is not going to be productive or solve anything, and will probably serve to destroy the lively discussion and debate in Officer.com

    Amen to that



    ------------------
    "The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it."

    Leave a comment:


  • Artie
    replied
    grum,
    I totally agree with you. Perhaps we should have a truce on the gun debate. I'm willing if everyone else is.


    ------------------
    We are the Police! Resistance is Futile!

    Leave a comment:


  • grum
    replied
    The view from Canada

    After reading the previous posts for this topic, one thing has become clear to me,

    "Different countries exist because the people that live in them are different"

    If we all wanted to have an armed civilian population, a strong military, govt, subsidized agriculture and other things that are important to citizens of United States, then we'd all choose to be American. If we wanted to have strictly controlled firearms, unsubsidized agriculture, and less emphasis on military might, we'd all choose to be Australian. The truth is that not everyone sees the world in the same view or holds the same things important. There is no perfect solution to issues such as gun control and so individual countries will address the issue as their citizens see fit.

    I understand points made by the Aussies regarding frustration with the U.S. role in the world, but being a neighbour to the States I can understand American's desire to defend things that they hold dear. Getting into a ****ing contest over this issue is not going to be productive or solve anything, and will probably serve to destroy the lively discussion and debate in Officer.com

    Being Canadian, peacekeeping is something we do well and count as very important, so let's all take one giant step back from this and let it rest.


    Leave a comment:


  • interloper
    replied
    If you go to the US, you will notice that they seldom if ever report Oz events and accomplishments. Matter of fact - US news services seldom report on international events unless they contain or have the potential to contain some US involvement.

    In Oz and other countries that I have visited, the percentage of international news stories is significantly higher.
    Of course that is the reality of the news business. In Oz or any country you will hear international news that affects their viewers. They see lots of American news for a couple of reasons. In America we have an abundance of newsworthy events that affect people internationally and we have many, many more news organizations to provide that news coverage. News of other non-USA countries is seen a lot in Europe and elsewhere because of the proximitiy of those countries to each other. We are more isolated geographically.

    As for American news, in the USA what happens in Oz seldom has much impact on life here. You will see lots of news in the US about the Middle East. We have a large Jewish population here who are especially interested as well as other Americans who are impacted by what happens there. We also have access to channels on cable and satellite that provide news from other countries in Europe (BBC, BBCA) and Central America (Galavision, Univision). All newspapers have an international section. Specialized news magazines come out weekly. The national news programs are only 30 minutes long so you will find mostly US news
    there but we have many resources for international news for anyone who wants to access it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artie
    replied
    Mitzi,
    I wish you had named me when you wrote about me in this posting. I could have answered it earlier. Its taken me this long to find the other posting that you mention was written by Rule.303 and is now closed.

    Let me firstly state that I do not have the capacity to say what is wrong with American policies. I don

    Leave a comment:


  • Delta_V
    replied
    Originally posted by copitsweet:

    Love that comment about WWII!! How long did it take them to get into the war? And what were they doing while they waited?
    What were we doing? Let's see...building war supplies to equip other allied countries to assist their efforts, building up our own military, etc. The US had no reason to get into WWII any earlier. We hadn't been attacked. Sure, you all were helping out the war effort, but when your northern ports got bombed, most of your troops were recalled back home (an action your PM got chastized by Churchill for). So much for helping the rest of the world, huh? I'm still waiting for one of you Aussies to dispute what I said about US participation in wars. It's not about who gets there first, it's about who DOES the most.

    I personally don't like having to be the world's police force in every UN action. Maybe you all in Australia should volunteer to do more than you do. I guess you can call me a bit of an isolationist, but if some tribes in Africa want to go to war with each other, I don't believe that our dedicated troops should be going into harms way. It's not our problem. I'd be interested to see the number of US troops in international UN actions...I bet it far outweighs the numbers of Australian troops.

    And about the history books...what countries use the same history books? I'm sure the Japanese use different ones than you. The English too, probably. How about African countries? Few countries use the same history books. Yes US history books proudly cover US accomplishments...that's why the course is called US HISTORY.

    [This message has been edited by PatrickM98 (edited 06-02-2001).]

    Leave a comment:


  • copitsweet
    replied
    Hey Rule

    Having just been beaten about the head and shoulders over our so-called "BS gun laws", I just wish to make one small observation here.

    They outnumber us

    They outgun us and

    They read different history books than us.

    If you go to the US, you will notice that they seldom if ever report Oz events and accomplishments. Matter of fact - US news services seldom report on international events unless they contain or have the potential to contain some US involvement.

    In Oz and other countries that I have visited, the percentage of international news stories is significantly higher.

    Love that comment about WWII!! How long did it take them to get into the war? And what were they doing while they waited?

    Leave a comment:


  • Delta_V
    replied
    Originally posted by Rule.303:

    US subsidises wheat. (Australia was the largest wheat exporter in the world. Aussie wheat growers when in to economical ruin when the US govet bought the wheat from US farmers then sold it to the USSR, China and other Asian countries
    Sorry about you Australians' luck...but I think the US should have more concern about US farmers than foreign farmers. Why would the US buy wheat from Australia when they can buy it from their own people and enhance their own economy? You shouldn't gripe about other countries not buying your products when they can buy from their own citizens and help out their own people. If your economy was so devistated because wheat sales to the US dropped, that just says that your country is too dependant on one cash crop AND foreign aid.

    Originally posted by Rule.303:

    Aussies were first on Iraqi soil and actually fired the first angry shots.
    Does it really matter who was there first? Who had the largest force there? Who did MOST of the work? Same with Vietnam. I'm sure we had more soldiers killed in that conflict than the Australians even had over there. Same with WWII...sure Australia had a role, but it was nowhere near as big as the US's. Who cares who's the first to be there/fight? Could WWII have been won without the Americans? What about the Australians? I'll let you answer that one.

    [This message has been edited by PatrickM98 (edited 06-02-2001).]

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5846 users online. 319 members and 5527 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X