Comments by "Robert A" (@RobertAmer) on "ABC News In-depth" channel.

  1. 109
  2. 106
  3. 94
  4. 69
  5. 50
  6. 29
  7. 28
  8. 26
  9. 26
  10. 24
  11. 22
  12. 21
  13. 20
  14. 20
  15. 19
  16. 19
  17. 17
  18. 17
  19. 17
  20. 14
  21. 12
  22. 12
  23. 11
  24. 11
  25. The talk of intrusion into Taiwan's Air Defence Zone by Chinese military aircraft, is absolute nonsense, as this Zone, which is only bring touted by the U.S., covers a substantial part of the Chinese mainland. As can be seen on many of the maps shown by western media, all these flights were in international airspace. However, it is okay for two U.S. and one British aircraft carriers along with an amarda of support ships to sail through the strait separating Taiwan and the mainland. It would therefore be apparent that whilst these ships remain in this area to intimidate China, the PLA airforce is likely to continue these sorties. As for the use of the word "autocratic or autocracy", which is often used to describe China, it is time to think again. Yes, China has a single party government, which is headed by a secretary general, whom the west has given the name President, and results in the automatic use of this President being an autocrat. In actual fact, the governance of China is not much different to the west, other then there is little standing in the way of decision making. Let me remind you of the autocracy of almost every western nation whilst in a pandemic. You may not work, you must stay home, you are only allowed out for "x" number of hours per day, etc, etc, etc., at different levels of government. Also in the case of Australia, an Australian citizen must seek government approval to enter the country, and will likely be placed on a waiting list, with further covenants on arrival, regardless of where they have been. So think again before using this word to describe others who may have a different form of governance, simply to portray to the viewers a negative image of that country.
    11
  26. 10
  27. 9
  28. 9
  29. 9
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 6
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 6
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5
  51. 5
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. Let's think about the performance of Morrison and his Government from the country's position prior to his takeover. He has clearly demonstrated anti China behaviour following briefings from the U.S., along with his favourite buddy, Peter Dutton (the Minister for War), and call him that because that is all he thinks about as Minister for Defence. Dutton has visited Washington on at least three separate ocassions, fir briefings at the White House, starting as Minister for Home Affairs. How many times has he been to or contacted China to fact check this briefing information. ZERO! The same goes for Morrison, who has had much opportunity, but no action. As a result of his verbal diarrhea, lets not forget a Victorian Premier who had a similar problem, Australia has lost minimally a billion dollars worth of trade with China, with a relationship which has moved from Australian Naval ships visiting Chinese Ports, and military interaction between the two countries, to absolutely no contact between the two countries, other then to subscribe to abuse and accusation without fact checking and verification. So what did Australia lose? As widely reported, 600 million dollars of Barley sales (now being supplied by the U.S.), a large quantity of beef sales (but not entirely, much of which is now supplied by the U.S.), Western Australian Rock Lobster (Tasmanian lobster was not included as a banned product), Australian Wine (which is loved by many chinese people), Black coal (but not entirely), and potentially LPG, for which China is Australias biggest customer, (which will likely be replaced with gas from new fields in Kazakhstan or somewhere close to this region). At no time during any period has any minister from the government gone to China to address these issues with the Chinese Government. So who has benefited and who has not. Clearly the U.S. has gained an additional billion dollars worth of sales, France has gained substantially with wine sales, with a spread of other countries gaining other sales, all of which is a net loss to mainly Primary Industry. Further, due to AUKUS, we are now an enemy of France. I am sure further advances with the anti China rhetoric every possible moment in Parliament could advance Australia's position with China to no imports at all. There are numerous other issues that could be cited, but most importantly what is missing is communication, and the China hate (it can be heard in Morrison's parliamentary question time) should cease. Australia's position should be one of how do we recover what is lost, and what did we get from the U.S. as a result of being their lapdog? Likely U.S. military bases in the Northern Territory. This will make Australia the 51st State of the U.S., or has everyone missed that possible scenario? Think about it!
    2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. There is too much missing information here so that it is clear as to these events. Also there appears to be misreporting for the purposes of sensationalism by reporters. Missing information includes but not limited to a medical team sent to investigate the outbreak from Beijing on or about 31st December. The suppression of information was by the Wuhan medical authorities, because they did not know what the virus was. Dr Li did not make a public posting of information, which was in fact information of a pathology report of one of his patients which indicated the patient was infected with the SARS virus. He warned his students and his peers to be aware on a wechat group, which resulted in a screenshot by one person in the group who posted this to social media, which went viral. He was not picked up by the police, but was asked to come to see the police. The police in Wuhan have also been dressed down by the public security heads in Beijing, for lack of investigation. I live in China, and i have been watching these events unfold since late December/early January, so have become both aware and informed of this situation. I have always held a high opinion of four corners, and in particular of many matters which has brought to light, but am disappointed on the reporting of this event, which still has a long way to go. I hope you will acknowledge that perhaps your report was based on limited information that you had. However, if you really wanted to do research, you can find more then 6000 articles on this issue in a Baidu search.
    1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1