Political discussion

[rtt_rules]

On the Iran thing

- Israel never condemned the Crimea invasion in 2014.
- But Israel did call out Russia for invading Ukraine in 2022.
- Israel has rejected calls for sanctions against Russia and even opposed others sending weapons to aid Ukraine.
- Israel and Russia remain on mostly good terms as plenty of Jews in Russia.
- Iran was aiding Russia to some degree with sending weapons, mostly drones to Russia for use in Ukraine.

- However Israel's conflict with Iran which is mostly a game of Drone tennis and some other hardware would be impacting on Iran's ability to send further support to Russia and may actually lead Iran to ask for Russia's aid.

- Iran's ability for a sustain sizable conflict has been questioned for some time and following Russia's failure in Ukraine many previously so called strong military's around the world have since been down rated. The vast majority of its airforce is actually USA sourced which gives you an idea of the age as USA has held sanctions against Iran for decades. The movie "Top Gun 2" is based in some degree on the Iranian Airforce age. It has a rag teag fleet of US, Russian, Chinese built Russian, USSR, stolen French. Much of its so called fighter jets wouldn't look out of place in the Vietnam war.

So my thoughts are, is this $hit fight also a means to reduce Iran's ability to support Russia and ulimately Russia in Ukraine and why USA (Trump) for now has mostly been hands off?

[MiCCROwavE_OVEN]

I'd like to say that the reason Trump has been laying off so far is because past US interventions in the Middle East have been far from successful (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan)

But I don't think that's the reason - perhaps he's trying to follow his campaign policy of being a peace-maker. If Iran continues to attack Israel, the US has made very clear that they will intervene - Trump himself delivered a personal threat to the Iranian Supreme Leader via Truth Social if I recall correctly.

Regarding AUKUS, I harbour deep suspicions that the US will wait till Australia and the UK pour billions of dollars into the partnership before pulling out. I forgot who, but an official (either from the US or UK) stated that US support for the deal was rock-solid - I can't help but wonder whether that rock is teetering off the edge of a cliff...

[rtt_rules]

I'd like to say that the reason Trump has been laying off so far is because past US interventions in the Middle East have been far from successful (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan)

But I don't think that's the reason - perhaps he's trying to follow his campaign policy of being a peace-maker. If Iran continues to attack Israel, the US has made very clear that they will intervene - Trump himself delivered a personal threat to the Iranian Supreme Leader via Truth Social if I recall correctly.

Regarding AUKUS, I harbour deep suspicions that the US will wait till Australia and the UK pour billions of dollars into the partnership before pulling out. I forgot who, but an official (either from the US or UK) stated that US support for the deal was rock-solid - I can't help but wonder whether that rock is teetering off the edge of a cliff...

I don't see Trump as a peace maker, rather the opposite.

I think he's holding off because if they get involved the question is why?
Did Iran attack any US assets?
Is Israel under direct threat of invasion?
Will getting involved directly turn the tide of Arab states away from the USA? They may insist no direct attack is made from bases on their territory.

The question is, how long can Iran continue and I think Trump's two weeks is intentionally stated to come in after much of the fight from Iran has expired.

AUKUS,
USA doesn't need to offically pull out, the contractc states that the USA comes first and must supply its internal needs first, for which they are way behind. So as long as this stays as is, USA is not proceeding with the project more than saying it will, but not now.

[Swift]

I’d love to see how Koala brain Harrelson would handle it -never in 100,000 years!!

[MiCCROwavE_OVEN]

Sounds like a perfect excuse for the US to do next to nothing while Australia and the UK pour billions into AUKUS.

[rtt_rules]

Sounds like a perfect excuse for the US to do next to nothing while Australia and the UK pour billions into AUKUS.

Yup
A bit of breakdown, long read but if interested. The section in bold is the key part.
The issue Trump craps on about on-shoring jobs jobs jobs, but there are 10,000's of skilled jobs they currently cannot fill for their own defense force.

America first?
Under the AUKUS agreement, the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s.

But it's not building enough Virginia-class submarines for its own fleet, let alone enough to supply Australia.

Ten people stand on the deck of a submarine that has partially surfaced.
Under the deal, Australia would get at least three US-made nuclear-powered submarines in the 2030s. (Horacio Villalobos#Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)

To meet its targets, the US would need to build them at a rate of 2.3 a year. It's only making 1.2 a year.

Christopher Miller, who served as the acting defense secretary in the dying days of the first Trump administration, warns production is "moving too slow".

"I think probably most of that's on the United States side, to be perfectly honest with you," Mr Miller said.

"The problem is we don't have the workforce, the welders, the skilled machinists that are required."

Adam Smith conceded slow production had put pressure on the AUKUS deal.

"But I'm hoping that the AUKUS deal will also put pressure the other way. It'll put pressure to solve that problem," Mr Smith said.

A person wearing a welder's helmet, jacket and gloves holds a welding torch.
The US is not building Virginia-class submarines fast enough to supply them to Australia. (Four Corners: Rob Hill)

Earlier this year Australia's defence minister handed over $800 million to his US counterpart. It was the first of six payments designed to help bolster the struggling American submarine industry.

The chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, told Four Corners Washington was determined to boost production and to fulfil its obligations under the deal.

"That is the United States Navy's job to set the conditions to enable that to succeed," Vice Admiral Hammond said.

"They're being backed up with strategic investment by the United States and by Australia. So I've got every reason to believe they will succeed."

'They can walk away'
The Trump administration said its review of AUKUS included ensuring it was "aligned with the president's 'America first' agenda" and that "the defence industrial base is meeting our needs".

AUKUS critics, such as the former commander of the Royal Australian Navy's submarine squadron Peter Briggs, warn Australia could lose everything it has bet on the nuclear subs.

"This is a good deal for the Americans," Mr Briggs said. "If they see that the AUKUS program is impacting on their capabilities, they can walk away from it."

"No penalties, no refunds. That's it."

Under the United States's AUKUS legislation, the president has to certify to Congress that any transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia would not degrade America's undersea capabilities. Otherwise, the transfer will not take place.

Jake Sullivan is confident that whoever is president when the certification has to take place will honour the deal.

"If the US woke up one day and decided it was not going to follow through on AUKUS, could it do that in reality? Yes, of course," Mr Sullivan said.

But he said the AUKUS deal ultimately benefited both sides, and he added that the US and Australia had long had a relationship of trust and sticking to agreements.

American leverage
The man leading the review, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, has been staunchly opposed to transferring any Virginia-class submarines to Australia while they are needed by the US.

Last year, before his elevation to the Pentagon, Mr Colby told the ABC it would weaken American strike power.

"It would be crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with China over Taiwan," he said at the time.

That view isn't shared by other Republicans close to Donald Trump.

"We're not 'giving them away'. I mean, we are putting them in the hands of our friends in Australia," Republican congressman Rob Wittman told Four Corners.

He said having Australia equipped with Virginia-class subs would place an obligation on Canberra to use them to assist the US in the Indo-Pacific.

"To me, that's a lever. That's where we can leverage the ability for Australia to do even more in partnership," Mr Wittman said.
"That's a force multiplier for the United States and our friends in that region of the world."

An older man wearing a suit and tie sitting in a dimly-lit formal office smiling.
Republican congressman and Trump ally Rob Wittman. (Four Corners: Rob Hill)

The prospect of "leverage" concerns some, who warn the deal could undermine Australia's sovereignty.

Mr Briggs fears it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan.

"You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not," Mr Briggs said.

Vice Admiral Hammond said Australia's sovereignty would not be challenged simply because it was using US technology.

"I think it just rings a little hollow," he said.

"I know that there are critics out there who believe that this technology is so exquisite, it shouldn't be gifted or sold unless there was a guarantee associated with it. That hasn't been part of the program to date."

Shifting priorities
Mr Trump's approach to diplomacy and the US's lagging production are not the only factors threatening to disrupt AUKUS.

Under the plan, the UK will design a brand-new nuclear-powered submarine called the SSN-AUKUS. Construction is due to begin by the end of this decade in the UK and Australia.

But the UK is facing more pressing challenges closer to home.

Since the signing of the agreement in 2021, Europe has seen the outbreak of the largest war on the continent since World War II. Senior UK defence experts say that has up-ended the country's defence priorities.

Sir Michael Fallon, who served as the UK's defence secretary from 2014 to 2017, is a strong supporter of the AUKUS alliance.

"A lot has changed. We've had our own continent invaded by Russia. Something that I don't think every anybody properly predicted," Sir Michael said.

"The challenges have grown. The world has got more dangerous."

Mr Trump has made it clear that Europe is no longer Washington's first priority, warning this year that the US may not protect NATO members who are not paying enough for their own defence.

In response, the UK and other European nations have scrambled to re-prioritise trillions in spending to beef up their armed forces and defences.

A review of the UK's defence strategy released this month committed to getting up to 12 SSN-AUKUS attack submarines in the water on schedule.

But it has also pointed to a strategic shift caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the need for what the review calls a "NATO first" policy.

"While Britain, of course, has important relations with Australia, the centre of gravity of the country's security is in Europe," former UK national security adviser Peter Ricketts said.

"I think the whole context in which the AUKUS deal was struck has changed and has changed Europe. I don't think it's going to go back. I think we are now going to be spending and focusing on our security in Europe for the foreseeable future."

'It's not like building a shirt for Marks and Spencer'
The US isn't alone in struggling with submarine production.

Former First Sea Lord Alan West said the UK currently did not have the workforce or the specialist skills to deliver the SSN-AUKUS on time.

"They're not there yet. We've got to have a really major training program in terms of shipyard ability and also in terms of the nuclear ability," Lord West said.

An older man wearing a suit and tie sitting in an older stately foyer.
As First Sea Lord, Alan West oversaw the Royal Navy's operations including the deployment of submarines. (Four Corners: Rob Hill)

"The trouble is with huge complex programs like building nuclear submarines, you know, it's not like building a shirt for Marks and Spencer. I mean, the length of time is huge."

Lord Ricketts said Australia should not expect the SSN-AUKUS to arrive on time or budget.

"I think any sensible defence calculation will be that these things will be more expensive and later than is currently expected," he said.

"Australia has to expect that the timelines that are now drawn are bound to string out."

The final stage of the deal involves Australia starting its own production line of SSN-AUKUS subs.

Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, who heads the Australian agency tasked with overseeing the AUKUS program, said the SSN-AUKUS subs were on track.

"We're absolutely committed to building our own nuclear-powered submarine and having that delivered in the early 2040s. That is our plan. That is our commitment," Vice Admiral Mead said.

"I'm not underestimating the complexity of this. This is the most demanding technological and industrial undertaking that any government in Australia has embarked upon. This will be probably the most complex engineering feat in the world."

[rtt_rules]

TBH, I think its about time we went back to the French with a bottle of their best wine and said, "we need to talk".

If I recall correctly the problem with the old French sub contract is that were running over time and budget tryingt o convert a nuclear sub to diesel. We were to buy 6 x diesel and leave the door open to buy 6 x nuclear in the future. This is the key reason why we choose the French sub over the English, German and Japanese.

At the time Australian opnion was untested on whether or not the public would accept nuclear powered subs and to be fair back then there was still a fair bit of resistance, however now there is far less resistance. So yes, maybe go back to the French, make peace and see if we can get a partial contribuion from previous funds and just proceed with the 12 x Suffren Class nuclear subs, assembled in Sth Australia.

[The Phonj]

Yup
A bit of breakdown, long read but if interested. The section in bold is the key part.
The issue Trump craps on about on-shoring jobs jobs jobs, but there are 10,000's of skilled jobs they currently cannot fill for their own defense force.

America first?
Under the AUKUS agreement, the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s.

<Remainder of article snipped for brevity>

Could you cite the source of the article please

[rtt_rules]

Yup
A bit of breakdown, long read but if interested. The section in bold is the key part.
The issue Trump craps on about on-shoring jobs jobs jobs, but there are 10,000's of skilled jobs they currently cannot fill for their own defense force.

America first?
Under the AUKUS agreement, the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s.

<Remainder of article snipped for brevity>

Could you cite the source of the article please

Ok whoops, left off.

If anyone wants to find a source for an article and the source is not posted, just post a paragraph into google and it will come up.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-16/ ... /105412740

[rtt_rules]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/20/econ ... ys-economy

“Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Juneteenth, a newly designated federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged during a Thursday briefing with reporters that it was a federal holiday and thanked reporters for showing up, but declined to answer whether Trump was doing anything to mark it.

“The workers don’t want it either!” Trump said of federal holidays in his post.

For the record, the United States, there are 11 federal holidays set by law. See U.S. Code Title 5 Section 6103. Holidays and Public Law 117-17, another one is Presidential Inauguration Day in Jan following a Pres election every 4 years.

• 1. New Year's Day: January 1st (fixed date)
  2. Martin Luther King Jr. Day: 3rd Monday in January
  3. Washington's Birthday (Presidents' Day): 3rd Monday in February
  4. Memorial Day: Last Monday in May
  5. Juneteenth National Independence Day: June 19th (fixed date)
  6. Independence Day: July 4th (fixed date)
  7. Labor Day: First Monday in September
  8. Columbus Day: Second Monday in October
  9. Veterans Day: November 11th (fixed date)
  10. Thanksgiving Day: Fourth Thursday in November
  11. Christmas Day: December 25th (fixed date)

In USA, if fixed date public holidays fall on a weekend, then govt and major private sector employees and some others get a deferred public holiday like Aust, but this isn't mandatory.

I'm not American and nor do I know the history of much of these holidays and how cultural the history is for th many of these, however a public holiday for Inauguration Day does seem a bit much, just do it on a Sunday. I would have thought Memorial Day and Veterans Day is for the same thing like our ANZAC Day, but no idea. Most country's have a day to remember their military lost in battle.

Martin Luthur King Day would seem more credible for a public holiday than Washington's birthday, but hey we celebrate the birthday of a Monarch that has no direct control or influence in our country on a day thats not actually their birthday but convient.

Columbus Day, umm, he didn't actually land in the USA, he landed basically in the Bahamas and wasn't out to prove the world round as this was common knowlegde for 1000 years before, but he was actually looking for India.

Thanksgiving, probably more meaning than Easter Monday holiday in Australia and as for Juneteeth a day to remember freeing of the slaves. Certainly an important event but some may think King's birthday enough? However good luck removing it.

Also note USA annual leave is not mandatory. While there's no standard, many private companies offer employees between 10 and 20 days of paid vacation per year, often increasing with tenure. 10 days is typical and increases to 15 days after non defined years of service, but also be negotiated higher when starting a new job if you are in a position to dictate and often done with a slight reduction in salary.

Moral of the story, Turmp again "MAGA" by wanting to decrease worker conditions in the OECD country with the worst employee conditions.

[rtt_rules]

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news ... 5-intl-hnk

Well that was two weeks later, but job done despite his own intellegence team saying "nothing to see there".

[rtt_rules]

Ok, interesting

As Trump was headed out to the helicopter on the White House lawn, he was faced by reporters. Lots of questions. His last line is a beauty and a rare occasion I agree with him.

"They (Israel and Iran) have been fighting for so long they don't know what the ** (yes he said this clearly) they are doing."

Agree, they don't know what fk they are doing.

Trump was very unhappy with Israel, probably more so than Iran.

[Swift]

I over heard that. The f…ck was beeped out but I knew it wasn’t the word meaning faecal matter.

[Swift]

If in any doubt.
https://youtube.com/shorts/lhO6nq8j-dw? ... SEmcf63_vT

[rtt_rules]

Gaza is still pending

It would appear despite Trump's comments that the bombing wasn't as sucessful as first hoped and heavily critised those who stated otherwise as liars spreading fake news.

Also of interest Iran only restarted its nuclear program AFTER Trump withdrew from Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018. Whether this is the only reason Iran restarted its nuclear program is unknown.

A bit of an idealogical debate
- Many in the USA and Trump stand by the "right to bear arms" despite the 100's of children killed each years in schools and 10,000's of others who die due to gun fire which includes more people shot each year by their dog than by terrorists etc etc.

The near 300 year old constitution was drafted when the weapons of choice were single shot muskets that took 30 sec to reload with an accuracy and lethal range of less than 50 m and certainly did not consider 21st century military style large calibre automatic weapons as "the right to bear arms".

- So on this basis, doesn't Iran have the "right to bear weapons" which are not illegal under the Geneva convention such as bilogical and chemical weapons and this includes nuclear? NK has nuclear weapons, the USA didn't bomb them (for obvious reasons and I also think China keeps the Boy Kim under a tight leash and would invade should there be a reasonable threat).

No I don't support Iran or any country having nuclear weapons, but it does seem very hpyocrital.

[Swift]

Do you want to Iran to be the second country to use nuclear weapons because they will likely be no.2 not long after successfully developing their own.
It may seem unfair on the outset, but I think there must be good reasoning behind not wanting them to have their own.
Hard to See it from the side of a country that Sanctions abuse of women and treating them officially as second class citizens. Their leadership are animals.

[rtt_rules]

Do you want to Iran to be the second country to use nuclear weapons because they will likely be no.2 not long after successfully developing their own.
It may seem unfair on the outset, but I think there must be good reasoning behind not wanting them to have their own.
Hard to See it from the side of a country that Sanctions abuse of women and treating them officially as second class citizens. Their leadership are animals.

The problem is, says who? The beat up in much of the western media about Iran is 99% of the problem.

Pakistan a country less stable than Pakistan developed nukes decades ago. Womens rights there are not much better than Iran.
NK has them.
Hell Putin is sitting on the worlds biggest stockpile, although most unlikely work.
What Israel is doing to the people of Gaza for 2.5 years is hardly up there with best practice, an intial response was expected and justified but seems they have gone beyond that madate.
Sth Africa is run by corrupt idiots, it has nukes.

No I don't want to see them develop nukes although they likely already have or capable of doing so. They were warned to remove the nuclear material prior to bombing to prevent a radiation leak.

[MiCCROwavE_OVEN]

I have done a bit of research into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the only reason that Iran didn't have nukes earlier is because they were (and probably still are) a party to the Treaty. Israel, Pakistan, India etc (not sure about South Africa) aren't parties to the NPT (and so still have their illegal nuclear bombs), and North Korea is just North Korea.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the US bombing of Iran was illegal under international laws (the UN Charter). But the US has a poor history of following international laws anyway, and the global perception at the moment is that the bombing was necessary nonetheless to prevent the existing tensions between Israel and Iran from developing into a full-blown nuclear war. North Korea may have nukes, but they're not in the middle of a war, so the urgency isn't there yet.

Nuclear weapons are very different to guns in that mass shootings don't kill as many people or leave as serious of an environmental impact. There is no gun that has the capability to destroy an entire country, but nuclear bombs do.

Personally I doubt that Iran's nuclear program is finished at the moment (they are probably still hiding stuff elsewhere) but kudos to Trump for ordering Israel to stop their bombers from paying Tehran another visit. That would have been disastrous

[rtt_rules]

For a good laugh, google "Trump F-bomb remix", its non-political brilliant

[rtt_rules]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/30/busi ... ce-tariffs

Trump and his fake news
“They won’t take our RICE, and yet they have a massive rice shortage. In other words, we’ll just be sending them a letter, and we love having them as a Trading Partner for many years to come,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

Trump’s claim that Japan “won’t take” rice from the US isn’t true. The country bought $298 million worth of rice from the US last year, according to US Census Bureau trade data. Between January and April of this year, Japan bought $114 million worth of rice.

Japanes RICE Trade Balance 2023
Exports from Japan
Total of $92.5M in Rice, primarily to Hong Kong ($18.5M), United States ($14.4M), and Sao Tome and Principe ($9.88M).

Imports into JAPAN
Japan imported $737M in Rice, from United States ($387M), Thailand ($196M), and China ($81.7M).
So 50% of all imports in 2023 was from USA.

India's rice exports have been rising due to booming production rates (likely less drought as a few years ago they banned exports to ensure local consumption for the poor) and generally cheaper than other countries including USA.

[Swift]

Do they buy Aussie Sunwhite calrose rice that Australians have trusted for over 50 years?

[rtt_rules]

Do they buy Aussie Sunwhite calrose rice that Australians have trusted for over 50 years?

Yup, 22% of Australian rice exports is to Japan and typically around # 6 or #5 on their top 10 import list.

2023 was up $36 M to $63 M

[rtt_rules]

Trump Lies again

US President Donald Trump’s latest claim about wind power in China has sparked widespread fact-checking and was labeled a “lie” by netizens on social media.

Trump on Friday local time made a controversial claim about wind power while renewing his attacks on renewable energy. He complained that many of the components used in wind turbines are made in China, then suggested that China itself does not actually use wind turbines, Huffpost reported.

“I have never seen a wind farm in China,” Trump declared. “Why is that? Somebody check that out.”

I think most people actually know its the complete opposite and of those who don't know, few would state there is none.

[Heihachi_73]

Trump's still alive?

[rtt_rules]

Trump's still alive?

Apparently.

Now Elon seems to be starting a political party Trump isn't wrong in his comments on this that 3rd parties in the USA have never been successful (Trump tried and failed). However, globally there is a shift away from major parties by both extremists and moderates, many believe due to the boom of cheap and easy to broadcast FB and YT self produced media and major outlets like Skynews leaning harder and harder to the far outside. Feeding politically desperate people what they want to hear even if its technically nothing but made up lies, rather than a more balanced view.

Not sure Elon should be doing this right now, especially if he plans to put himself at the head (Elon isn't elligble to run for POTUS), because Tesla is likely in trouble as his time with Trump caused alot of damage to Tesla combined with the growth of BYD and others.