Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 10, 2011

U.S. Military In Australia - China As Subterfuge

What's wrong with the U.S. military to station more ships and fighter jets in Chicago and Houston to defend against possible threats to Los Angeles and Seattle?

Those planes and ships would be too far away from the West Coast? The planes can not fly that distance in combat configuration? The ships would need over a week to reach California? Such stationing does not make any sense? Well, you are right.

But such an argument is made to justify new U.S. military deployments to Australia:

President Barack Obama will announce an accord for a new and permanent U.S. military presence in Australia when he visits next week, a step aimed at countering China's influence and reasserting U.S. interest in the region, said people familiar with his plans.
The move could help the U.S. military, now concentrated in Japan and South Korea in Northeast Asia, to spread its influence west and south across the region, including the strategically and economically important South China Sea, which China considers as its sovereign territory.
One base slated for the stepped-up American presence is in Darwin, on the country's north coast. Other locations are possible, including one near Perth, on the west coast, one person said.

The South China Sea dispute (map) is between China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines over hoped for oil reservoirs below the sea floor. It has nothing to do with Australia or the United States.

The distance between Darwin and the nearest point in the South China sea is over 1800 miles. To reach the Chinese cost it is 2,600 miles as the crow flies. A base in Perth is even 600 miles further away. At 20 knots speed a ship would need to sail more than seven days from Perth to Zhanjiang, the nearest port in south China.

The U.S. already has bases in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines which are all much better situated to intervene in the South China sea. To claim that China and its South Sea is the reason to position more U.S. military in Australia doesn't make any strategic sense. It is obviously a subterfuge.

As for the real reasons? To gain more U.S. influence over Australian politics? The Military-Industrial Complex' determination to for continuous expansion? I have no idea. If you can think of any good reason to station U.S. troops in Australia please let me know.

Posted by b on November 10, 2011 at 10:32 UTC | Permalink


I'd say it has something to do with this. As the world's resources are quickly diminishing, this area is a treasure trove, along with the Arctic considering the substantial melt. Some see Anthropogenic Climate Change as a catastrophe, and others see it as a source of fresh exploitation and continued growth.

QUT media and communication lecturer Dr Christy Collis said that, with its massive resources of fresh water and unknown quantities of oil, Antarctica could be ripe for exploitation once resources in the rest of the world became scarcer.

Dr Collis said this issue was particularly important for Australia as it laid claim to 42 per cent of Antarctica, giving it ownership of 10 per cent of the world's available land.

Her claims coincide with recent news that Britain is planning to claim sovereign rights over more than a million square kilometres of the territory.

Dr Collis is researching the cultural, legal and geopolitical aspects of Antarctica and said the treaty between 45 nations which governed the icy continent did not make the continent's future entirely stable or secure.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 10 2011 11:54 utc | 1

Australia's been re-aligning Sinoward. Lowy Institute has material on topic.

Posted by: MB1 | Nov 10 2011 12:56 utc | 2

Basic points
The USA has the most powerful military and resources now
The US cannot supply the oil it needs to survive now or into the future.
A person threatened by another standing on his necessary Oxygen supply will kill to secure the Oxygen .
The US will kill anyone anywhere to secure oil for the long term future .This will not stop anywhere.
International Law has no relevance to an all powerful force which sees no reason to defer to anyone
Us will use all its vast resources, including a nuclear armed Israel, to dominate the world
As power corrupts the US will carry out corrupt Power/Control /Prestiege acts.
In the name of good the US has carried out great evil ..Vietnam,South America, Iraq, Afganistan.........
They are not alone but they are the biggest example that if followed would produce a terrible world.
The people controling this huge Power have massive resources but the are no brighter than most of us.
Logical arguments are seen purely as debating points. Power alone decides in their eyes.
All Power comes to an end. They all leave it too late. The US may one day be a force for good.
Right now other forces are probably developing counters to the US threat. They will succeed. Leading to more danger.
We need a better way. Civilised people will light the candle and sow seeds now. They will grow and overcome the weeds.
Trust, believe, ACT. The best is yet to come.

Posted by: boindub | Nov 10 2011 13:19 utc | 3

Lowy Institute? Yeah sure, we'll all be logging in there!

I'm not convinced that there is ever much of a game plan. Maybe "they" are worried about China making a grab for Australian resources in the event of a final showdown.

A sizable number of Australians are Chinese anyway, and the future of Australia is China.

Posted by: DM | Nov 10 2011 13:22 utc | 4

Hm, subterfuge/disinformation I would think.

Background detail and a few initial thoughts:

RAAF Base Darwin is a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base located in the city of Darwin, Northern Territory(south of Indonesia and the Malacca Straits). The base 'shares' its runway with Darwin International Airport.

Not uncommon for B-52s, C5s and other long haul/long range strategic USAF aircraft to stop-over and transit through.

HMAS Stirling is the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) primary base on the west coast (Fleet Base West) of Australia(western Indian ocean). It is located on Garden Island in the state of Western Australia, near the city of Perth. Garden Island also has its own airport on the island.

Home port to the six RAN Collins submarines and five Frigates(modified OHP class). Also routine stop over port for USN vessels of all kinds, especially USN subs.

Australian ports are 'highly popular' ports of call for US crews. ;)

Otherwise various longstanding US and 'joint' 'communications/Intelligence' facilities in Australia.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 10 2011 13:55 utc | 5

Current US policy has recently notably increased the priority of the Pacific 'region' within Defence ... though traditionally comparatively relatively low resource/assets/focus priority.

Historically during WWII Australia served as the base of many major operations throughout the Pacific campaigns against Japan.

Huge national resources (Natural Gas, coal, ore, etc). That alone would likely be sufficient for current planners to expand basing rights/access (Resource wars anyone ?).

Within US policy planning Australia historically seen as essential to any US ability/operations to effectively ensure free transit (Control ?) of the Malacca Straits (geopolitically of similar importance as the Suez Canal, Panama Canal, Straits of Hormuz, etc, for example ... access is absolutely critical to China ...)

Malacca Straits

From an economic and strategic perspective, the Strait of Malacca is one of the most important shipping lanes in the world.

The strait is the main shipping channel between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, linking major Asian economies such as India, China, Japan and South Korea. Over 50,000 (94,000?) vessels pass through the strait per year, carrying about one-quarter of the world's traded goods including oil, Chinese manufactures, and Indonesian coffee.

About a quarter of all oil carried by sea passes through the strait, mainly from Persian Gulf suppliers to Asian markets such as China, Japan, and South Korea.

At Phillips Channel close to the south of Singapore, the Strait of Malacca narrows to 2.8 km (1.5 nautical miles) wide, creating one of the world's most significant traffic choke points.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 10 2011 13:59 utc | 6

Should a future crisis or conflict erupt between US and China, closure or blockade/denial of the Malacca Straits to China would provide huge leverage/benefits. The distances you mention above from China/South China Sea are then to the US benefit, Chinas detriment re access/transit/control.

Other planning benefits are secure strategic facilities re future power projection, forward/rapid deployment, etc, throughout Pacific, as well as Indian ocean, as historically for WWII campaigns against Japan ...

Historically international (US co-ordinated) denial of access to the regions natural resources to Japan (primarily Oil and rubber at that time) was a determining factor (along with response to Japanese occupation of China) in Japans decision to go to War (ie Pearl Harbour).

Chinas significant dependance on Australias natural resources, as well as the wider regions resources and markets, and critically of Malacca Straits transit rights, for its continued economic prosperity/viability is easily seen by US planners as similar to US-Japan strategic situ pre and during WWII regarding bases, facilties, resources, access, strategic base of operations, etc ...

Australia is seen as a politically stable suborned vassal (unofficial 51st pseudo-state ?) and giant aircraft carrier re policy re the Pacific, similar in effect to Englands role as a secure base against Nazi Germany/Europe for US ops throughout WWII.

PS Lowy Institute ~ effectively equates to Israeli Consulate ;)

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 10 2011 14:01 utc | 7

Outrage, from your link, this is of utmost import. Pursuant to what you have indicated about the U.S. using the Malacca Strait as a choke point to China in the case of growing and escalated hostilities, Thailand and China are engaging in ways to circumvent this vulnerability. As such, I fully expect the West to use the Muslim card in Thailand to sow discord and chaos to mitigate any possible circumvention of that vulnerability.

Proposals to relieve the strait This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)

Thailand has developed several plans to diminish the economic significance of the strait. The Thai government has over the course of its history several times proposed to cut a canal through the Isthmus of Kra, saving around 960 kilometres (600 mi) from the journey from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. This would also cut Thailand in two, further isolating the separatist Muslim majority in Pattani. China has offered to cover the costs, according to a report leaked to The Washington Times in 2004. Nevertheless, and despite the support of several Thai politicians, the prohibitive financial and ecological costs suggest that no such canal will go ahead.

A second alternative is to build a pipeline across the Isthmus of Kra to carry oil to ships waiting on the other side. Proponents say it would cut the cost of oil delivery to Asia by about $0.50/barrel ($3/m3). Burma has also made a similar pipeline proposal.

I believe what you have mentioned, combined with what I have posited, is the majority of the reasoning for this presence. Well, there's that, and the fact that you have to do something with the uncompromisable Military Budget.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 10 2011 14:20 utc | 8

My thoughts turned to Arctic regions as well. But then, that is what the US does. The first rule of power in the US mindset is that it must be deployed, it must be dramatized and flouted.

Power alone decides in their eyes.

Yes. Yet, when the definition of power is very narrow and restricted, that is circumscribed to military might, brow-beating, and shored up or justified by an ideology or principles - arguments - that appear increasingly to be mendacious, hypocritical, and even ridiculous - the position is not favorable. Recycling the same-old contradictory rubbish in a multipolar world that has moved on looks not only dictatorial but foolish and weak. Remember the Politburo?

That definition of power leaves out ruse, bluff, feint; negotiation and cooperation, of a kind, to gain the upper hand; and ideological agenda which can please and gather adherents; protecting some elements to ‘turn’ and then exploit them; etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 10 2011 14:22 utc | 9

MB @ 1: Bingo! Maybe I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, but I see everything the U. S. military does, in the light of resource hegemony.

Posted by: ben | Nov 10 2011 14:34 utc | 10

Further background/clarification:

String of Pearls (China)

The String of Pearls refers to the Chinese sea lines of communication which extend from Hong Kong[citation needed] to Port Sudan. The sea lines run through the strategic choke points Strait of Mandab, Strait of Malacca, Strait of Hormuz and Strait of Lombok as well as other strategic naval interest such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives and Somalia. The term was used in an internal United States Department of Defense report titled "Energy Futures in Asia".[1]

“The “String of Pearls” describes the manifestation of China’s rising geopolitical influence through efforts to increase access to ports and airfields, develop special diplomatic relationships, and modernize military forces that extend from the South China Sea through the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean, and on to the Persian Gulf.
—Christopher Pehrson

Hence new US bases, new policy priority on Pacific region, as before with Japan ...

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 10 2011 14:55 utc | 11

In the short term, I think as long as China allows our mega-corporate types to exploit their peon slave-labor, there won't be much of a problem. I see their leaders as part of the global 1%ers, not willing to rock the boat too much, at least in the near-future. They'll make noises like they believe in national dominance, but, in reality, globalism is the real goal. Just like here, in the U.S. Time will tell.

Posted by: ben | Nov 10 2011 15:16 utc | 12

"Perth is even 600 miles further away"

Minor correction required?
Perth and Darwin are roughly 2000 miles apart and separated by about 20 degrees of latitude ~ roughly 1200 miles.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 10 2011 15:19 utc | 13

PDF source ref: StrategicStudiesInstitute.Army.Mil

String of Pearls:
Meeting the challenge of china’s rising power
across the asian littoral

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 10 2011 15:27 utc | 14

Ummm...isn't linking to the SSI the same principle as linking to Lowy? I think it is, but maybe I'm wrong, and the U.S. Army/Military is a trustworthy source, afterall.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 10 2011 15:55 utc | 15

Perhaps as preparations for war on Iran -- a means of keeping China out of the fray?

And/or to add a little spice to get China to buy US/European Debt? President Hu Jintao, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama to meet for APEC meeting in Oahu.

Posted by: Kim Sky | Nov 10 2011 16:01 utc | 16

@16, or to get China to buy U.S. weapons with all their loose pocket change. It's the one thing the U.S. does well these days, besides blow all manner of shit up for Global Corporate.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 10 2011 16:07 utc | 17

If the US is expanding its military reach around the world, then why is the unemployment rate so high among our veteran population? Since it's easier to create jobs in the public sector than it is in the private sector, especially when you're in in the midst of an intractable recession as we are today, then why isn't the DOD being used as an "employer of last resort" to put our unemployed veterans back to work?

I understand that many of our veterans are too damaged by war, either physically or mentally, to work as soldiers on the battlefield, but many of them are capable of doing work away from the battlefield, such as writing computer code for aerial drone missions or cooking up meals for the mess hall. As long as we've got military Keynesianism in full throttle, we might as well use it to the max. And what better way to use military Keynesianism to the max than to use it to reduce unemployment among our veterans?

Posted by: Cynthia | Nov 10 2011 17:13 utc | 18

The most reliable source if you wish to understand the reasoning behind and drivers of the actual relevant policy. Next best thing to access to current DoD or State Dept policy/planning documents. Military studies are driven by executive influence/direction, not by chance, to then feedback into the executive decision/policy making process/loop ...

Lowy material especially re the Middle East are not government or agency planning documents but crafted disinformation/propaganda pieces for 'consumption' and 'enlightenment'(sic) in comparison(IMV). Similar to the IAEA annex ?

Unlike most nations the US, its organs and agencies are comparatively remarkably open regarding strategic policy/planning, especially Think Tanks, military and governmental studies. The purpose is to obtain insight as to the true motives and purposes as opposed to those public stated, if ever ... ever read Sun Tzu Art of War ?

The following I would suggest is a typical example of progagandistic tripe on the same topic posing as informed analysis

some insightful extracts from declassified docu from the 50's:

the major oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in human history.
extract from draft of a memorandum to then President Truman, from the State Department re the Middle East


so far as the sheer value of territory is concerned, there is no more strategically important area in the world than the Middle East, the so-called land bridge to Africa and Asia.

Then President Eisenhower recognized the Middle East as, "the most strategically important area in the world"

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 10 2011 17:17 utc | 19

Outrage, it begs the obvious question, though. If it's a highly regarded strategy, why make it available to the Chinese so they can take measures to counteract it....unless, of course, that's precisely your goal? You want China to take the bait because the MIC's, as Eisenhower warned yet so amply facilitated, mission is to gain Full Spectrum Dominance in perpetuity, and therefore, enemies real or imagined must be found, or created out of thin air.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 10 2011 18:07 utc | 20

In regards to @20, when I say "you", I don't mean you, as in Outrage, specifically. You is the U.S. Military in this case.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 10 2011 21:07 utc | 21

Morocco Bama - Got any other predictions about what states are about to do from 2007?

Posted by: asdf | Nov 11 2011 10:28 utc | 22

Interesting quote from Australian Foreign Minister Rudd talking about his recent meeting with Clinton:

"What she said very clearly was that in the future, if and when you see the draw-down occur both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, that any military resources released by that should be further deployed elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region."

Posted by: Mashayar | Nov 11 2011 11:56 utc | 23

The game changing strategic threat of new generations of significantly more accurate multi-role multi-capability super and hypersonic Chinese MRBMs and ASBMs threatening the traditional strategic Japanaese/Pacific US bases in Okinawa, Guam, etc, as well as actual individual US capital ships such as Attack Carriers CVNs, the basis of US Naval/Air power projection in the form of carrier groups and therefore Naval/Air supremacy.

Dong-Feng 21 (DF-21)
Originally developed as a strategic weapon, the DF-21's later variants were designed for both nuclear and conventional missions. As well as a nuclear warhead of around 300kt, it is thought that high explosive, submunition and chemical warheads are available. The latest DF-21D was said to be the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The DF-21 has also been developed into a space-capable anti-satellite/anti-missile weapon carrier

To 'enhance' the US Military/Political alliance with its 'Deputy Sheriff' ? A way for Australia to re-assure the US as such re its utter economic dependance on China perhaps ? Ahem, only transitioning US forces in and out of 'existing' facilities (there'll be no actual US bases built folks *cough*) whilst minimising 'controversy'.

The imperative to redeploy marine forces from Japanese island of Okinawa due to irreconcilable and determined rejection of US bases and troops by Okinawans.

US Marine base for Darwin
Two-thirds of all US Marines are based in the Pacific, with big concentrations at US bases on Okinawa Island in Japan and Guam, a US territory 2000 kilometres north of Papua New Guinea.

''This is all about the rise of China, the modernisation of the People's Liberation Army and, particularly, it's about the increased vulnerability of US forces in Japan and Guam to the new generation of Chinese missiles,'' said Alan Dupont, the Michael Hintze professor of international security at Sydney University.

''The new Chinese missiles could threaten them in a way they've never been able to before, so the US is starting to reposition them to make them less vulnerable. Australia's 'tyranny of distance' is now a distinct strategic advantage.''

Professor Dupont, a former Australian Defence official and intelligence analyst, said the ''Australian strategic rationale is that we are also hedging against increasing Chinese military power and their capacity to destabilise maritime trade routes. And we want to get closer to the US...

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 11 2011 13:11 utc | 24

Minor correction required?
Perth and Darwin are roughly 2000 miles apart and separated by about 20 degrees of latitude ~ roughly 1200 miles.

I wrote about the distance from Perth/Darwin to the southern part of the south China sea.

Max Fisher of the Atlantic sees several reasons. This one might be plausible:

Could Australia be the new Saudi-style U.S. client? If the U.S. wants to build the kind of presence in East Asia that it could be closing out of the Middle East, it will need a reliable and pliant client state in the region. Japan is too powerful on its own and too independent; Indonesia might worry about a domestic backlash if it moves too close to the U.S.; South Korea is too worried about North Korea; and the nations of Southeast Asia are still not quite stable enough. But Australians are democratic, speak English, don't have ideological reasons to oppose the U.S., and could really use a powerful sponsor, especially as China becomes more dominant. "Australia is like [the Persian] Gulf, cant possibly defend itself, relies on US protection. Politically can't rock the boat, just like Gulf," Australian journalist Tom Gara wrote on Twitter. This explains why Australia has joined every single American war, including Vietnam, which even the British wouldn't touch." Australia, like the nations of the Persian Gulf, might be willing to hand its foreign policy over to the U.S. in exchange for the implicit security guarantee of a large military base.

But who would/could attack Australia besides the United States. So its essentially blackmail ...

Posted by: b | Nov 11 2011 13:37 utc | 25

Times, they are a changin'...

A couple of excellent pages on Chinas newly deployed Attack Carrier PLAN 83(01?) (Ex Varyag), soon to be followed by indigenous currently under construction Chinese built CVs ...

PLAN 83(01?) Shi Lang (Ex-Varyag Class)


Posted by: Outraged | Nov 11 2011 14:07 utc | 26

wouldn't a base in Australia essentially create a route between S. Korea/Japan and Australia that would provide a justification for heavier US presence in the S. China Sea?

Posted by: scottindallas | Nov 11 2011 16:00 utc | 27

A few suggestions:

1) Australia has uranium - and MOX nuke fuel "recycling", post-Fukushima, has become kind of unpopular these days on safety/cost grounds.

Also, perhaps USMIL believes that the Australians, who for a while now have pretty much been packing up everything into boxes and forwarding these to China, shouldn't be so generous with their exports to a major US competitor?

2) Or possibly, USMIL will, in time, have to draw down its bases in Japan/Okinawa, once medium- to long-term Fukushima-related radiological effects become more apparent.

One wonders what sorts of monitoring USMIL is undertaking on existing personnel still stationed in the region?

A move to Australia would be far enough away from out-of-control melted-down nuke reactors in Japan to provide the semblance of radiological "safety" for USMIL personnel. (Don't go near the Kittens, though.)

An extensive literature exists, compiled in the past 50 years, about the efforts of servicemen and women from whatever country to achieve redress from deliberate/negligent exposure by their military to toxic materials - ranging from cold war nuke tests, to Agent Orange, to Gulf war syndrome, and depleted uranium.

As extensive data-monitoring by USMIL has undoubtedly taken place of the situation at Fukushima, even if these data have not been released fully to the public, perhaps this time it will be little harder to cover up the inevitable deaths that would result among USMIL personnel?

4) In addition to which, there's another 40 or so nuke reactors waiting to pop in Japan's coastal regions, once the next major earthquakes/tsunamis hit.

Perhaps USMIL, since March, has become party to information that renders it less confident in Japan/Tepco's ability to manage existing nuke reactors, to handle the ongoing, multiple meltdowns at Fukushima, and the future meltdowns that will undoubtedly occur?

Posted by: Anon | Nov 11 2011 16:43 utc | 28

I’m with ben @ 12 on China (as we seem to be treating the whole world here...) What tends to be forgotten is that China is also dependent on imports, these have been increasing.

In the third link, all are brief, one can read that 2010 exports in billion of dollars were 1,557, and imports 1,394 - close to parity.

China’s hysterical ‘growth’ is sustaining, supporting, and drawing in several other economies, under the radar. The US itself exports a lot to it. Nobody wants to offend China, and not just because of its ‘full’ coffers.

Just one piece of the puzzle.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 11 2011 17:03 utc | 29

Secretary of state says pullback from two wars will allow US to work with, but also challenge, regional powers such as China

The US has 50,000 troops stationed in Japan and South Korea. "As this region changes we must change our force posture, to ensure that it is geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable," she said. "A more broadly distributed military presence provides vital advantages, both in deterring and responding to threats, and in providing support for humanitarian missions."

Clinton said Americans may think that in financial tough times the US should be scaling back rather than reaching out to Asia. "This thinking is understandable but it is mistaken," she said. "What will happen in Asia in the years ahead will have an enormous impact on our nation's future."

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 11 2011 22:44 utc | 30

Survey of Australian academics re analysis of the US bases and 'new US Asia-Pacific century':

Is a US Marine base in Darwin really a good idea?

This current global situation is characterised by John Bellamy Foster as “the attempts of Washington to restore and expand its global hegemony, using its military power to enhance its economic position”. William Tabb provides a finer-grained analysis of the motives for the current round of US expansion. It is in part spurred on by “the financial turbulence that has gripped the economy of the United States”.

But there is also a growing resistance to US economic and military imperialism, according to Tabb, since it “has been discredited both in terms of its regime-change-wars-of-choice and the increasingly effective resistance to the international financial and trade regime we know as the Washington Consensus” – not least exemplified by ongoing Japanese problems with Okinawa, Taiwanese moderation and Filipino reluctance to expand US bases. Even formerly friendly Pacific islands may not anymore be the best frontline bases, especially with China gazumping the US and Europe in deal-making there.


The Darwin base will be used to guard/intervene in the naval oil and gas routes around South East Asia, not least those radiating from Australia, and provide a springboard into/fallback position from South Asia. That is, it is for forward projection, not Australia’s defence. This will hardly create a good look with our neighbours as we try to convince them that our regional engagement is genuine and not simply a stalking horse for US ambitions.


As Scott Newton reminds us, “If a constitutional order … rigidifies a certain constellation of social and economic power within one territory at one point from that point forward, an imperial order rigidifies a similar constellation of power across territories and from one (metropolitan) to another (colonial) territory.” That’s what’s happening in Darwin: a more rigid incorporation of Australia into the US project in Asia and the Middle East. A project not of defence and stability, but of aggressive projection, pre-emption and subordination, what Foster calls “potentially the deadliest period in the history of imperialism.” If we sow this wind in Darwin, then we’ll reap the whirlwind.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 12 2011 14:46 utc | 31

I would have thought the reason why America is moving troops and equipment into Australia was obvious: The might of the American Military is poised to take out ACDC before they can record yet another album with exactly the same beats as the last 24.

At least I hope that's the reason...I don't want anyone hurt.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Nov 12 2011 23:11 utc | 32

The comments to this entry are closed.