rgmwa

You will have to ask GON what a Traditional Australian is. I guess First Nations people should qualify given the length of time they have been here.

In my previous company, we once did a quick headcount and came up with 14 different nationalities. We are a multicultural country and by and large a pretty successful one, but not without associated problems such as crime and gangs. However, the vast majority of immigrants are good people who just want to get on with their lives and be decent citizens. As Jerry said, the only traditional Australians are the First Nations people. The rest of us are all new arrivals by comparison.

What does a `Traditional Aussie' look like in your view?

There's been speculation about who might succeed Trump when he finally goes, or who he might endorse. Vance or Rubio would be the obvious choices, but there is a view that he doesn't want anyone to replace him because he couldn't stand the thought of not being at the centre of things. I think there's some merit in that view and that he would rather take the ship down with him than have somebody else take over the Republican side. He might even be happier to see a Democrat as president than someone from his own side who would replace him as the centre of the universe in the US.

Thanks to my parents I'm a post war immigrant from Holland so the impact on me personally has been quite significant. Likewise, I think our family's impact on Australia has been quite significant, but that's just my opinion.

Do you include European immigrants as Traditional Australians, or does your definition just describe the descendants of the colonial era immigrants (some might say invaders) who were born here (except for the Chinese, I suppose).

There's zero chance of him being awarded a Nobel prize of any sort.

Mark Kelly seems to be generally well liked. At this stage it’s anyone’s guess who ends up running for the Democrats. My comment was more about what the Democrats are for. They are all united in their opposition to Trump and his regime but their vision for the country is less clear at this point.

The problem the Democrats have is that they aren't organised and don't have an obvious plan for what they want, apart from getting rid of Trump's mob. They need to work out their version of a Project 2025 type manifesto that makes sense for the country and that they can sell to the public before the 2028 elections. I think Project 2025 was a disaster for democracy in the USA, but it unfortunately showed what can be done if you get organised.

Those kinds of scripts - short sentences, lots of padding, trying to build up drama are common in many internet videos. Unless I've missed something in the link, if all he said was "Let's call it what it is", then I've just wasted a few minutes.

They don't need to anymore. Trump is doing it all by himself.

The real concern is that AI might make the contributors to this forum obsolete.

Yes, and I agree with you.

The US is in the Middle East because of the oil. The US supports Israel because of the influential Jewish lobby in America. There is no doubt Israel is threatened by its neighbours in the region and needs to protect itself, and it does this very effectively by preventative maintenance - striking first. America’s support and weapons are crucial in this although they also have a large defence industry themselves. America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil has reduced almost entirely in recent years because they have figured out how to extract their shale oil and rob Venezuela. They are still interested in the Gulf oil because it’s essential to their global competitors which includes their allies.

Yes the US has been in the Middle East for decades ‘helping’ the Arabs extract their oil and gas reserves. I’m sure they would like to get their hands on the Iranian oil too but the regime there doesn’t want their help, Iran is a disruptor in the region, and a threat to Israel and US interests, especially if they get nuclear weapons. I don’t think the oil is a reason for this war starting. It is about the threat to Israel generally with or without nuclear weapons but especially with them. That’s Trump’s stated aim for getting involved but he’ll grab anything else he can get.

I agree with that. He certainly didn't go into it for Netanyahu or Israel. He went into it for himself because he thought the Iranian leadership would fold in a couple of days and he'd be famous as the President who had the nerve to take on the Iranians and show the world how weak his predecessors were. He wanted the world to applaud how smart and amazing he is. All he's managed to do is demonstrate how vain and stupid he is.

You're giving him far too much credit for forward planning. Trump is an opportunist, not a thinker. He's had it in for Iran for years and Netanyahu gave him the hard sell a couple of weeks before the war. Hegseth was for it, Vance was against it, and Rubio was on-board but only for getting rid of their missiles, while John Ratcliffe told him straight out that Netanyahu was pulling the wool over his eyes. Trump went for it anyway. Now that he's created this mess, he's latched onto the idea of going into partnership with the Iranians to charge a toll on ships using the strait. I don't think the Iranians will be very interested in that, nor in handing over their oil. If Trump did somehow try to grab the oil, Xi would be on the phone to the White House.

Trump's aims are all over the place so at best, he might have a concept of achievement, but no idea of how to get there. However, he will drop Netanyahu like a hot coal if he sees some face-saving way out of the mess that he's created.

I think Netanyahu sees Trump as the useful pawn.

I grew up not far from Warrnambool and lived there for a while. Belt was pronounced `belt' as far as I know.

Trump to Iran; “That’s not a blockade, THIS is a BLOCKADE!”

I think he sent Vance as punishment because Vance was against the war. That puts him neatly in the hot seat. Trump has already said publicly in a meeting that if Vance pulls a deal off, Trump will take all the credit, but if he fails Vance will own it.

Like I said, conspiratorial nonsense. Naveed Akram is on remand waiting for his trial to start. In other words, he's in jail. There no doubt he's guilty because the whole country witnessed it, but there is a legal process to follow and it takes time. He's not going anywhere. Linking the Ben Roberts-Smith arrest with the Akram reporting is more conspiratorial thinking.

That's ridiculous conspiracy thinking nonsense.

Threatening genocide is not the best way to win a Nobel peace prize.