where you getting all of these assumptions from? do me and yourself a favour please read this
US-AUSTRALIAN SECURITY TIES
Let's start with some theories here:
1- Australia's location: As per its geographic location, it faces absolutely no threat. During the Cold War, there was always a Red boogeyman around. Not anymore.
2- Time period 2007-2009: During this time when USA was successively running into one recessive stonewall after another, coupled with the ongoing WOT, Australia was the only westernized country that survived the onslaught of recession. Do you know what saved their necks? Single-handed Chinese trade that gained massively during that period. That period not only saw Rudd reaching out to China more than usual, but a phenomenal degree of Sino-Australian friendship and commercial relationship that even got your government uncomfortable. This was voiced not by some closet debaters online but well known economic sources worldwide. A search through the beloved Google will further enlighten you regarding the same.
3- US objectives: If you're politically intelligible which I am sure you are since your comments bank on rationality rather than emotions, then I am going to tell you something which has been the ground reality of formation of modern countries since the last century's beginning all over the world. See the following statement:
Both of these nations have a similar history of Anglo-Saxon immigration into a vast untamed continent, where they had to fight an incessant battle for possession and control of land and resources with the native people.
This is probably the only thing that is common between you and the Australians.
Now look at this statement:
In other words Australians and Americans share the concepts of democracy, freedom and human rights.
As I said, since you're politically intelligible, I'm assuming you'd know that these sort of statements are just meant for public consumption. Surely you'd not be naive enough to actually take these fancy words on face values. Because of this was the case then US would be on collision course against half the southeast Asia and entire Middle East as well as entire Central Asia. The reality: It is not.
The simple reason there are ties between Australia and you lot is that both of you share population race-migration history, have developed from the same set of concepts that both evolved and hence possess the same mindset: trade, resource utilization and ensuring establishment of a virtual "system" wherever you guys are stationed.
I am not saying it is a bad thing. No.. in fact that is pretty smart.
The following validates my theory even further:
It was in the backdrop of rapid Japanese military expansion in South East Asia and the vicinity of South Pacific that Australia felt need to look at the United States as the saviour, Prime Minister John Curtin, infact, made an appeal on 27 December 1941 that his country would "look to America" for security of Australia and the region "without any inhibitions of any kind". This appeal was made at a time when the British protective shield, operating for more than a century and a half, appeared inadequate and a militarily vulnerable Australia was faced with the threat of a possible Japanese attack.
At first the boogeyman was Japan, then it turned out to be the Soviet Union-backed Southeastern nations. When all that is over, what benefit does Australia have to have you around? Don't tell me China is going to be a boogeyman today. Today's China is nowhere close to what the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were in their times of power.
Australian diplomacy centered round an attempt to find 'a powerful and willing friend' to replace Great Britain
Further evidence. And you of all must know that there are no political friends. In crude terms, Australia simply has no reason to continue this relation of security other than you being their shop for swanky weapons. As China further reaches out to Australia, and if the current administration is persuaded enough, China will replace you. One thing you need to know about the Reds of China is that they don't occupy something that will be met with a deadly resistance. If they could simply capture the Australian supplier list, that is in today's economic terms sufficient enough to be called "colonized".
The only reason they're unable to do that is because of the untimely departure of Rudd from politics. However, this is a concern not voiced by me but by well known sources that as I mentioned, a Google search would take you through.
Fact is- you are citing your opinion that I have showed from the horses mouth to be quite different. even with china overtaking as no1 trade partner...
