| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S. sending Marines to Australia?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


U.S. sending Marines to Australia?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4747
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: U.S. sending Marines to Australia?
    Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 06:12
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

There is no comparison between Australia and China. The scale doesn't match.



I think the ANZAC treaty pretty much tips the scale back towards Australia's favor.


I think you mean the ANZUS Treaty, which was a full three way pact between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America.

The original arrangements were changed in 1984 when New Zealand refused permission for US Nuclear powered vessels to enter its waters.

The arrangement now is a split two way by two way agreement. Australia and New Zealand continue mutual defence ties and Australia and the US share an agreement. New Zealand does not have a pact with the US.

But you're correct, it's in both Australias and Americas interests for the US to have a larger presence in South East Asia, particularly as the Diego Garcia arrangements with the UK may soon end.

It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 13:39
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Yes, they were anti-communist, but the Philippines and Korea had also gone through insurgencies and, in Korea's case, a full blown conventional war when the insurgency failed. So if you are going to argue that they were in Vietnam because of some flawed monolithic vision of communism, you are talking about heads of government who had had some not minor experience with their local communists. Indeed, in 1968 the North Koreans launched four separate bids to spark an insurgency in the ROK. Five, if you count the failed Blue house raid by a team of North Korean commandos. Monolithic communism may have died with Stalin and the USSR-China split, but in certain parts of Asia the body was still twitching. Today Korea and Taiwan are both prosperous and democratic. That's more than can be said for Vietnam. 


 
"Local communists" is a key term here. Conditions in those countries were such that some were motivated to pick up a gun. That does not say that they intended, if succesful in their rebellion, to start the march onwards to California. Nor would they likely have their skys darkened by Vietnamese paratroops after a communist victory in that country.
 
The point is that by being dazzled by the idea of communism, tragic mistakes were made in policy that could have avoided war. The US has always done business with whoever suited their interests, democrat, authoritarian, or even crazed killer. The Soviets were supported when it was essential to do so. Right-wing fanatics have received aid if the situation called for it. Today China is a top down, authoritarian, anti-democratic country that is America's biggest trading partner. American's now do business in Vietnam. So much for labels and economic idealism.
 
Vietnam was a sadly mistaken policy, abetted by self-serving hangers on, and others driven by fear and misguided analysis. The poor performance of communist countries economically is not the issue really. Some capitalist countries have had an abysmal record. Wall Street today is crying out for reform. China, still an authoritarian dictatorship, it doing quite well.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 03:03
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I think some people do mix up the advantages/disdvantages of joining the EU and joining the Eurozone. The publicity given to the Greek situation last year led I think to biassing many people against EU membership though it had nothing actually to do with the EU.

Actually reason for fall of EU membership support in Turkey quite simple. People pretty much dissappointed from waiting for 30+ years. But punchline was Cyprus issue. Turkey agreed referandum for unification and supported "yes" side and results was "yes" from Northern Cyprus but South said "no", thus unificiation didn't occured (2004). Then Turks start to think they had done what they could. But still EU insisting Cpyrus issue for EU membership above everything else. This led to questioning sincerity of EU.



Second reason, people started to think "we don't need EU anymore".


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 16 Mar 2012 at 03:09
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 02:47
Yes, they were anti-communist, but the Philippines and Korea had also gone through insurgencies and, in Korea's case, a full blown conventional war when the insurgency failed. So if you are going to argue that they were in Vietnam because of some flawed monolithic vision of communism, you are talking about heads of government who had had some not minor experience with their local communists. Indeed, in 1968 the North Koreans launched four separate bids to spark an insurgency in the ROK. Five, if you count the failed Blue house raid by a team of North Korean commandos. Monolithic communism may have died with Stalin and the USSR-China split, but in certain parts of Asia the body was still twitching. Today Korea and Taiwan are both prosperous and democratic. That's more than can be said for Vietnam. 




Edited by lirelou - 16 Mar 2012 at 02:48
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 16:25
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Quote Captain Vancouver: Sometimes US foreign policy is happily received by others, sometimes not so much. Many US allies were aghast at the Vietnam debacle...

Well, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of China (Taiwan), and the Philippines were definitely not aghast, and provided small contingents of their own. (South Korea's was the largest, at 2 Infantry Divisions, and Marine Brigade, and Air Force and Naval contingents. France, some certainly were, but they had far greater internal problems that occupied the public's attention. Germany, some yes, some decidedly no.) 
 
An impressive list, but as with so many other aspects of foreign policy, closer scrutiny shows up some less admirable factors. South Korea and Taiwan (and to a lesser extent the Philippes) shared a similar situation to South Vietnam, in that they were run by fervent anti-communists (if not democrats) whose survival depended upon continued US military and financial support. An insurance policy in favour of their own personal continuity is a more likely explanation for their military support than the hope of a Jeffersonian democracy in Vietnam.
 
Remnants of the great fear of the "yellow peril" still existed in Australia and New Zealand at that time. This dovetailed nicely with the concept (since discredited) of a monolithic bloc of communism, all on the same page, and all devoted to endless expansion. Australia has historically feared the three billion asians lusting after their resources and open spaces. Ever since Britain's indifferent support of that country in WW2, they have looked to the US for defense, and would no doubt send along a battalion to Paraguay if the US invaded that country, and asked for support, in order to prove solidarity.
 
Apart from government (and perhaps more essentially), many, many individuals around the world were aghast at the US efforts in Vietnam, and demonstrated against them. This included allies such as Australia, and even the US itself. This latter was, as you of course know, a factor in the eventual debacle in 1975.
 
We have visited this issue before, and it seems to boil down to the unacceptability of admitting misguided, uninformed, selfserving, or any other less than admirable attributes to US foreign policy, now or in the past. It is a cliche to say that one must admit their mistakes before it is possible to learn from them. But take a look at recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's time to 'fess up, if you ask me.
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


For all: Consider the possibility that this move may be a precursor to a coming reallignment of U.S. Forces in the Pacific. In Okinawa, there is constant pressure upon the Japanese government to winkle more military areas away from the Americans. Within Japan itself there are a number of bases currently occupied by the U.S. as part of the U.N. mission in Korea. The U.N Command formed in the 1950 still exists, and U.S. Forces in Japan and Korea are a component of that command. When Korea reunifies, the U.S. will no longer have the writ to occupy those bases as part of the U.N. Command. Add to that the pressure on local Japanese governments to take back some of those lands for civilian uses, and you can see that our presence in Japan will also be reduced sometime in the future. My own judgment, based upon nearly seven years residence in Korea is that once Korea reunifies, by whatever means, the U.S. will find itself being politely shuffled to the departure gate. That leaves the Philippines, already proven untrustworthy, and such small islands as Guam. Given those real possibilities, if the U.S. is to retain a meaningful presence in the Pacific, which American planners see as contributing to the stability that the East Asian region has known over the past 60 years, Australia's Northern Territory begins looking quite desirable.  
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 18:36

Quote
Well... Polls says only 38 percent of people in Turkey views EU membership as a positive thing. Shocked This ratio was 74 percent in 2004. I think that way too. It's certainly shouldn't be our interest. No visa requirement + free trade is good enough for me. That's all I'm expecting from EU. Turkey is just on a workforce boom. One million people just joining to workforce annually and unemployment rate still slightly falling. That's probably explanation for how Turkey growing so fast (9 percent last year). But currently 2.03 children born/woman ratio means this boom will be lasted 20-30 years later. That's why Erdoğan recommending everyone "at least three childs" at weddings. Then seculars revolting Tongue

I found it interesting that Greeks were now working in Turkey, due to the thriving Turkish economy, and the situation in Greece. The EU is about to fall apart IMO.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 15:37
I think some people do mix up the advantages/disdvantages of joining the EU and joining the Eurozone. The publicity given to the Greek situation last year led I think to biassing many people against EU membership though it had nothing actually to do with the EU.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 03:17
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Hello Mr. Jingo, how are you today?

You can forget about the EU. Once bitten, shame on Greece,
Twice bitten (Turkey) shame on the EU.

Well... Polls says only 38 percent of people in Turkey views EU membership as a positive thing. Shocked This ratio was 74 percent in 2004. I think that way too. It's certainly shouldn't be our interest. No visa requirement + free trade is good enough for me. That's all I'm expecting from EU. Turkey is just on a workforce boom. One million people just joining to workforce annually and unemployment rate still slightly falling. That's probably explanation for how Turkey growing so fast (9 percent last year). But currently 2.03 children born/woman ratio means this boom will be lasted 20-30 years later. That's why Erdoğan recommending everyone "at least three childs" at weddings. Then seculars revolting Tongue
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 00:15
Quote Captain Vancouver: Sometimes US foreign policy is happily received by others, sometimes not so much. Many US allies were aghast at the Vietnam debacle...

Well, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of China (Taiwan), and the Philippines were definitely not aghast, and provided small contingents of their own. (South Korea's was the largest, at 2 Infantry Divisions, and Marine Brigade, and Air Force and Naval contingents. France, some certainly were, but they had far greater internal problems that occupied the public's attention. Germany, some yes, some decidedly no.) 

For all: Consider the possibility that this move may be a precursor to a coming reallignment of U.S. Forces in the Pacific. In Okinawa, there is constant pressure upon the Japanese government to winkle more military areas away from the Americans. Within Japan itself there are a number of bases currently occupied by the U.S. as part of the U.N. mission in Korea. The U.N Command formed in the 1950 still exists, and U.S. Forces in Japan and Korea are a component of that command. When Korea reunifies, the U.S. will no longer have the writ to occupy those bases as part of the U.N. Command. Add to that the pressure on local Japanese governments to take back some of those lands for civilian uses, and you can see that our presence in Japan will also be reduced sometime in the future. My own judgment, based upon nearly seven years residence in Korea is that once Korea reunifies, by whatever means, the U.S. will find itself being politely shuffled to the departure gate. That leaves the Philippines, already proven untrustworthy, and such small islands as Guam. Given those real possibilities, if the U.S. is to retain a meaningful presence in the Pacific, which American planners see as contributing to the stability that the East Asian region has known over the past 60 years, Australia's Northern Territory begins looking quite desirable.  
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 21:04
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Hello Mr. Jingo, how are you today?

You can forget about the EU. Once bitten, shame on Greece,
Twice bitten (Turkey) shame on the EU.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 19:48
Hello Mr. Jingo, how are you today?
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 18:11


Who's threatening to bomb Iran? China?"

   That's not a threat. It's a promise.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 18:05
Quote
Could you please clarify what you mean by that?

 He has no idea that the Marines are also a tripwire.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 17:55
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15739995


what do you guys make of this??



another strange story as well

Gobi Desert Spy Satellite targets


 Hi General, if you think about it, Australia is our next closest ally after Israel. We have been shoulder to shoulder with them since WW1. They are no fair weather ally. Despite the unpopularity of the war they were with is all through the pain and mud of Vietnam.  General Westmoreland said "the average Australian private would be an NCO in any other army in the world." I don't know what's in the water over there, but they are superb soldiers. Like it or not China will become a threat to their security, or could be.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 13:17
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:


I already asked whether the Senate had ratified the treaty.
Not sure, but both the Government and Opposition would support it so it'd easily pass.
I meant the US Senate.
Good post.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 09:54

How did I miss this thread?

Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

Boots on the ground mean nothing here when they can't cross the air or ocean.

Or land. Sea is assessable compared to land.
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

Take out Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Canberra, and what are 2,500 marines going to do?

There's actually no point taking out Sydney, Melbourne or Perth. I was thinking about this the other day, you'd actually want to take out Adelaide, Canberra, Bungendore, Townsville, Wagga and Darwin. In fact, holding Adelaide alone would almost be enough to hold the country. These are all places that are exceedingly difficult to get to for a hostile military. Your airforce and army are rendered useless due to distance, and you'd have to park your navy in hostile oceans with very exposed supply lines.

2500 marines aren't going to make much of a difference. Except that it means that when Darwin is bombed (which is of course the first and only place anyone can reach with a bomber) they'd be killed, which would immediately ensure American involvement. Therefore they seem to be a good strategic asset, besides, as I understand it they're only here on R&R.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

And why may I ask the US "should" defend Australia? With the exception of Israel the US has no perminant allies. The minute Australia becomes such a burden to the US it would be sold just like all the US's other former allies.

That's the real reason why this is important, and that's the sole reason Australia follows the US around in its wars. No-one is completely conviced that the US would show up.
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:


I already asked whether the Senate had ratified the treaty.
Not sure, but both the Government and Opposition would support it so it'd easily pass.
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

It is a bizarre world that we live in. Here we have the US with tons of nukes and chose not to use them after 9-11 in turning the middle east into a scorched radioactive wasteland. It would have been counter productive for the US to have done so for so many reasons. It would also be extremely counter productive for the Chinese to do the same against the Australians.

That's a very key and important point that everyone always ignores in threads about Australia's security.

The Chinese will never attack Australia. We'll sell them whatever they want, we're outside their sphere of influence, and don't share a border. In 3000 years of Chinese History they have never done anything that could pose a threat.
Neither would Indonesia ever attack Australia. The Javanese and recently the Dutch have had 10,000 years to do so and have never been the slightest bit inclined. The only country that would, or could possibly attack Australia would be an expansionist, over-populated power with complete Naval Supremecy, plenty of paitence, and massive technological Superiority - ie, the British Empire.

The only forseeable way Australia would be involved in a serious war would be if China attack Taiwan or Vietnam and dragged the whole region into a massive war. In that case, and in pretty much all cases, Darwin becomes a base to defend Indonesia & Malaysia. Which is exactly what happened in WW2. Considering how interlinked economies are in Asia I can't see a war happening unless the US started it.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 01:48
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
Your are out of date penguin. To begin with, the US establishes its defense budget based on national priorities, not on an altruistic urge to pay other's way. Other nations are not going to subsidize the US in order to pay for their wants and needs, some of which do not coincide with their own. And today some countries that see some benefit from US involvement do in fact pay quite a bit for it. Gulf War 1 may not have happened without substantial financial backing from Germany, Japan, and others.


Sure, the U.S. still believe in lunatic dreams. If they were more practical, though, they could make a lot of good money just by asking the taxes they deserve for giving protection to weaker countries, such as Japan, Germany, Korea, Canada, Australia, Spain and you name it.
Every Empire is sustained by foreign taxes, but Americans have forgotten to collect the fees! A bad long term strategy.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 01:26
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Captain, it's worth noting that Gulf War 1 had the unhesitating support of pretty well everyone, and moreover in Bush Sr the US had a president more geared to accepting reality. In 1990 Iraq was in evident and flagrant breach of all international law. Support for the war had nothing to do with protection of the countries you mention: in 1990, who was threatening them?
I agree with you about pinguin.
 
My point here was merely that the notion of the US spending billions to defend others, thereby wrecking their own economy, is simply not so. Countries with a large US troop presence have been paying for quite some time. Others, like say Saudi Arabia, pay the US billions for arms, helping to support that industry. Germany and Japan were not directly threatened, but contributed to what seemed like a reasonable effort to stablize a critical region of the world. The US would have taken a huge financial hit if they, and others, had not.
 
Sometimes US foreign policy is happily received by others, sometimes not so much. Many US allies were aghast at the Vietnam debacle. Iraq 2 was also seen as a big mistake by major US supporters. It is ridiculous to suggest that other major nations chip in to the US defense budget while these sorts of adventures are ongoing. The US needs to get its own house in order, and curb the defense budget, lobbyists or no, and bring it down to a sane level of spending. One that meets possible threats, yes, but today $700 billion threats are remote and unlikely.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 22:55
Quote So ypu're saying that what's good about the deal is that it helps Australia bully other smaller countries when it disagrees with their internal affairs?


Most of the countries to our north are larger in terms of population. You might want to ask the people of Timor-Leste whether they considered Australia's intervention 10 years ago to be a case of bullying.

Quote Not really, actually. Anyway you've now dropped the defensive angle, and are arguing that US support would be useful in aggressive action or in the threat of aggressive action. Also I think you're going beyond the terms of the agreement.


No, you presumed from the outset that I saw the potential of this agreement in purely defensive terms. 2500 troops have both an offensive and defensive potential. And what constitutes offensive and defensive action will differ from one perspective to another.

0 troops have 0 potential, either offensive or defensive.

Quote So you like the treaty because you think it will help Australia impose its will on other smaller countries. Isn't that in somewhat flagrant breach of the UN treaties?


If applying extra pressure to the military junta in Fiji which overthrew the democratic government and is making overtures to the Chinese to destablise the Pacific, or having a properly equipped force available to stop Indonesian armed militias from massacering Timorese is bullying - then so be it.

Quote If it's already in the treaty I don't see what the point of celebrating now is.


On the contrary - implementing an agreement is more important than simply making the agreement. Words are cheap.

Quote You misread my argument. It's US economic distress that leads the administration to need a flag-waving sound-bite. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor.


Regarding US motivations and sentiments with this move - I totally agree with you.

Quote But your argument once again assumes Australia taking the offensive. And who's been doing the invading of other countries without a legitimate casus belli this millenium?


I've provided examples of the potential uses of military force. Other uses include more altruistic purposes such as applying pressure on juntas like Fiji's to reinstate democracy in accordance with the norms of governance that exist among the Commonwealth nations in the Pacific.

Whether something is taking the offensive or not depends on an understanding of the situation at hand.

US troops have been here stationed at Pine Gap, and the Harold E Holt radar station in northern Western Australia since 2008 (this was actually a much bigger and more significant development than the one which just occurred, the one which just happened is - as you say - more for US audiences to be happy with Obama). If you can find me any examples of how the US presence and cooperation with Australian forces has resulted in offensive action in violation of the UN within Australasia, I would love to review it.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 20:36
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But who is to determine what is a "cooperatively fair way that everyone else with a business sense recognizes"? Goldman Sachs? China is in WTO/GATT and follows its rules. The USD has had more trouble with breaking international trade agreements than China has - cf the steel tarifs a few years back.


I don't know? It would have used to been referred to the UN, but in the last two or three decades we have seen fall of the UN  to a level of irrelevance. That was one of the reason that the previous Bush administration tried to push for reforms at the UN but failed in convincing anyone that there was a grave problem within that August body. Now, instead of the internationally recognized 12 miles limit of a nation's claim to coastal waters, we are seeing the Chinese trying to claim all of the Chinese seas as their own to economically exploit, rather than work with or listen to the opinions of the dozen of other countries rights to the area. The US position has always been clear on this issue, freedom of the seas for everyone. As for steel tariffs, i think it is rather irrelevant as compared to a great power as China and the control of a vital shipping lane and the issue of who controls possibly vast amounts of important resources.

Quote
It was rhetorical.  China hasn't been threatening to bomb anyone. There have been a fair number of American politicians discussing a proposal to bomb Iran, possibly through Israel (I don't think I've heard any Saudi sources threatening it. Note that I'm talking about bombing with no actual casus belli, not some country threatening to retaliate if Iran attacks it..


I see.  Just because their dialogue amongst themselves hasn't reached us doesn't mean it isn't being discussed right this moment. I mean they aren't really open like Western opinion makers are.  On rare occasions, comments from Chinese military brass has been made known to the Western public that aren't exactly reassuring to peaceful cooperation within the region. Granted, it has been noted that there are worrisome differences in opinion between the military and political leadership in securing geopolitical objectives.  Now we can agree that China's rise is recent and of an unknown quantity. However, what little that i've seen hasn't been exactly inspiring as i would've hoped.

As for US politicians discussing bombing Iran, not that i am defending their opinions, but you of all people ought to know that there is a world of difference between campaign rhetoric and actual performances in office. Let us hope the same is true for the Chinese!?


Quote
China today is nothing like the China of the '50s through '60s. 'Reality' is that the Chinese have been beating the US hollow at more or less their own traditional game - mass production industries sheltering behind import limits. 


Indeed. And yet the US let's the Chinese consistently get away with it. So much for the theory that the US has been bullying the Chinese from a position of military strength.

Darn US imperialists, keeping the Chinese down while sending it's manufacturing capabilities overseas, specifically China and India, with little to no effort at seeking an agreement in lifting import limits. Humph... US bullying indeed!
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4543
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 19:48
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I'm not predicting it, though it isn't impossible, were China to complain sufficient provocation.
 
Basically I don't see any scenario that will lead to a Chinese attack on Australia, and I certainly cannot see any scenario in which China would be worried about the deployment of a single Marine unit.


Au contraire, China has already changed it's stance with a subtle about face since the US announcement.

Quote
I note you agree with me about the current sconomic state of the US, though we may differ I suspect on our assessment of the reasons for it. However that leaves it as something which he administration wishes to divert public attention from. Ancestral voices prophesying war do tend to be heard at time of domestic trouble. Especially with an administration trying to maintain and build up a regime rather more controlling than the US has traditionally been ready to put up with.


I really don' think this announcement is capable of distracting anyone from the economic problems here in the US. No, i  think this decision is completely separate from domestic issues and in honoring the ANZUS treaty.


Quote
I think you're about a generation behind reality, maybe more. For thirty years the rest of the world has been helping the US keep afloat, as US debt zoomed and zoomed. In all that time the only actual threat to the US has come from gangs of essentially crazy individuals.
 


No, that is open free markets and globalization at work. I know you and i will disagree on this issue but, take the US military out of the equation and we essentially will have a greatly destabilized world. Do you really think the other great powers out there would reign themselves in  if they were in the mood, in a world that lacks a counter balancing superpower? The threats out there are real and are not limited to gangs of crazy individuals in caves.

Quote
In the situation we are curretly in what has replaced the old cold war rhetoric you refer to (though I do hear it often enough from US sources still). That's a world-wide conflict between what really boils down to Keynesians and monetarists, with the parallel distinction between those forces that care for the people in general and in only partly economic terms, and those that aredetermined to maintain the power of financial capital, irrespectcive of the cost to others. 


I don't think it is as cut and dried as that. There are other factors that drive US foreign policy other than economical reasons as you suggest. I am not alluding to altruism, but geopolitical reality and the multitude of treaties that binds the US with many other countries across the world's regions.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 13:18
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quote Unless it was itself a response, of course.
You're quite probably right. However my point was that 2,500 Marines wouldn't make any difference to anything.


Not to the total war scenario which you are imagining.

But the reality in our region is that the vicissitudes of the fortunes of local authorities allow for tactical opportunities to be siezed by a power which is waiting and ready.

A neighbouring country's government collapses into shambles and the new strongman wants to nationalise mines or oil rigs in certain territories owned by Australian and American companies? Deploy marines nearby and 'guarantee the safety' of the site's personnel.
So ypu're saying that what's good about the deal is that it helps Australia bully other smaller countries when it disagrees with their internal affairs?
Quote
A small Pacific nation accepts a bribe from a larger non-friendly power to use its deep water port to harbour vessels from that country? Conducted a 'training exercise' in international waters near the harbour entrance as a deterrant.

A potentially friendly ethnic group within a larger nonfriendly country takes advantage of their master's political infighting to begin the fight for their independence? Have troops on hand to tip the balance of the conflict and secure for yourself a geopolitically advantageous result.

In these very realistic scenarios 2500 hundred specialist troops can make a decisive difference.
Not really, actually. Anyway you've now dropped the defensive angle, and are arguing that US support would be useful in aggressive action or in the threat of aggressive action. Also I think you're going beyond the terms of the agreement.
Quote
Quote Largely because it has enough in inventory. However it wouod be more tothe point here if the US had agreed in some way or another to guarantee a nuclear shield for Australia. How about a treaty allowing US nuclear submarines to use Australian waters and harbours?


Already in place, the ANZUS treaty covers that.

Quote
Even if that were necessarily true, what is significantly different from the situation without this treaty? Have you really been shivering in your socks because the US would not come to the help of an attacked Australia? If you have, what makes signing a treaty any different?
 
Incidentally, has the Senate ratified the treaty?


Australia is not at risk of attack, no one is scared. For the potential tactical uses I outlined above along with the economic and training benefits, having the 2500 here is better than not.
So you like the treaty because you think it will help Australia impose its will on other smaller countries. Isn't that in somewhat flagrant breach of the UN treaties? 
Quote
There was no treaty agreed to here, this is merely an agreement which complies with the terms established in the ANZUS treaty. No ratification is needed.
If it's already in the treaty I don't see what the point of celebrating now is.
Quote
Quote What worries me is that you think propping up a ring of bases is a better strategy for current circumstances than what China is doing. Especially when the cost, diplomatically and financially and in human terms is so high and the results so disillusioning. It may not be China that is building a ring of bases, but it also isn't China that's in economic distress or gaining a reputation for indiscriminate killing.


Come on now, you and I both know that the maintenance of these bases isn't the cause of the US's economic distress, so let's not call correlation causation.
You misread my argument. It's US economic distress that leads the administration to need a flag-waving sound-bite. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor.
Quote
Let's also not try to put maintenance of bases abroad in the same boat as unilaterally invading another country without a legitimate casus belli. Apples and oranges.
But your argument once again assumes Australia taking the offensive. And who's been doing the invading of other countries without a legitimate casus belli this millenium?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 11:57
Captain, it's worth noting that Gulf War 1 had the unhesitating support of pretty well everyone, and moreover in Bush Sr the US had a president more geared to accepting reality. In 1990 Iraq was in evident and flagrant breach of all international law. Support for the war had nothing to do with protection of the countries you mention: in 1990, who was threatening them?
I agree with you about pinguin.


Edited by gcle2003 - 21 Nov 2011 at 13:08
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 02:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Yes. If the U.S. do so, at least could ballance its budget.
In fact, surprising economical "myracles" such as the German and the Japanese, wouldn't happen  without the American free protection, and the military contracts the U.S. gave to those countries.
For instance, Japan development started with military contracts to manufacture supplies for the Korean war.
 
Your are out of date penguin. To begin with, the US establishes its defense budget based on national priorities, not on an altruistic urge to pay other's way. Other nations are not going to subsidize the US in order to pay for their wants and needs, some of which do not coincide with their own. And today some countries that see some benefit from US involvement do in fact pay quite a bit for it. Gulf War 1 may not have happened without substantial financial backing from Germany, Japan, and others.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 23:10
Quote Unless it was itself a response, of course.
You're quite probably right. However my point was that 2,500 Marines wouldn't make any difference to anything.


Not to the total war scenario which you are imagining.

But the reality in our region is that the vicissitudes of the fortunes of local authorities allow for tactical opportunities to be siezed by a power which is waiting and ready.

A neighbouring country's government collapses into shambles and the new strongman wants to nationalise mines or oil rigs in certain territories owned by Australian and American companies? Deploy marines nearby and 'guarantee the safety' of the site's personnel.

A small Pacific nation accepts a bribe from a larger non-friendly power to use its deep water port to harbour vessels from that country? Conducted a 'training exercise' in international waters near the harbour entrance as a deterrant.

A potentially friendly ethnic group within a larger nonfriendly country takes advantage of their master's political infighting to begin the fight for their independence? Have troops on hand to tip the balance of the conflict and secure for yourself a geopolitically advantageous result.

In these very realistic scenarios 2500 hundred specialist troops can make a decisive difference.

Quote Largely because it has enough in inventory. However it wouod be more tothe point here if the US had agreed in some way or another to guarantee a nuclear shield for Australia. How about a treaty allowing US nuclear submarines to use Australian waters and harbours?


Already in place, the ANZUS treaty covers that.

Quote
Even if that were necessarily true, what is significantly different from the situation without this treaty? Have you really been shivering in your socks because the US would not come to the help of an attacked Australia? If you have, what makes signing a treaty any different?
 
Incidentally, has the Senate ratified the treaty?


Australia is not at risk of attack, no one is scared. For the potential tactical uses I outlined above along with the economic and training benefits, having the 2500 here is better than not.

There was no treaty agreed to here, this is merely an agreement which complies with the terms established in the ANZUS treaty. No ratification is needed.

Quote What worries me is that you think propping up a ring of bases is a better strategy for current circumstances than what China is doing. Especially when the cost, diplomatically and financially and in human terms is so high and the results so disillusioning. It may not be China that is building a ring of bases, but it also isn't China that's in economic distress or gaining a reputation for indiscriminate killing.


Come on now, you and I both know that the maintenance of these bases isn't the cause of the US's economic distress, so let's not call correlation causation.

Let's also not try to put maintenance of bases abroad in the same boat as unilaterally invading another country without a legitimate casus belli. Apples and oranges.


Edited by Constantine XI - 20 Nov 2011 at 23:14
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 22:37
Yes. If the U.S. do so, at least could ballance its budget.
In fact, surprising economical "myracles" such as the German and the Japanese, wouldn't happen  without the American free protection, and the military contracts the U.S. gave to those countries.
For instance, Japan development started with military contracts to manufacture supplies for the Korean war.


Edited by pinguin - 20 Nov 2011 at 22:39
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 20:05

Are you suggesting that the United States sets itself up as a kind of security service to paying customers?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SLG-4cetz8

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 00:30
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:


Australia has the right to defend its own sovereignty, and as Australia's ally; America should stand beside Australia.


Why?

If the U.S. get deeper into economic problems it could finally realize that an important part of its wastes are the security that gaves for free to so many "allies". Just imagine an impoverished superpower that not only has to fight two wars continuosly, but that also must protect: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea, Australia and many other "allies", and everything for free.

Those countries should pay for the security what it really cost! That way the U.S. would have a surplus rather than a deficit.

Besides, I don't expect China to invade Australia when it is cheaper to buy its resources.


Edited by pinguin - 20 Nov 2011 at 00:31
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 21:00
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Why isn't China entitled to buy what resources it needs from wherever it wants to? Curently it seems readier to offer acceptable deals.  Wasn't that the complaint the Japanese lodged against the US pre-1941, and the Kaiser against the British Empire pre-1914 - that they were dominating economically the weaker resource countries, leaving nothing that Germany/Japan could afford?


Again. I reiterate that i am not against the Chinese in securing the resources they need for it's populations sustenance. They are free to compete with other countries, including beating out the US, in getting better deals in resources than what other countries can. That is if they do so in a cooperatively fair way that everyone else with a business sense recognizes.
But who is to determine what is a "cooperatively fair way that everyone else with a business sense recognizes"? Goldman Sachs? China is in WTO/GATT and follows its rules. The USD has had more trouble with breaking international trade agreements than China has - cf the steel tarifs a few years back.
Quote
Quote
I don't thnk I could agree more. But who's been doing the 'intimidating, bullying and acting aggressively against another country to get it's way' lately?
 
Who's threatening to bomb Iran? China?


Ummm... i think the Israelis followed by the Saudis have us beat in that department (Or is it the other way around), that is according to the wikileaks cables that i have read; Though i gather we would more than likely support the two if they chose to follow through in attacking any Iranian plants that have nothing to do with peaceful nuclear use. However, considering European news establishments disdain for the US or it's closer alliance partners, i wouldn't expect you to hold any different a opinion regarding the issue of Iran. As far as i am concerned, i am not in a rush to support any bombing campaign against Iran.

As for China, i am not sure what you mean,
It was rhetorical.  China hasn't been threatening to bomb anyone. There have been a fair number of American politicians discussing a proposal to bomb Iran, possibly through Israel (I don't think I've heard any Saudi sources threatening it. Note that I'm talking about bombing with no actual casus belli, not some country threatening to retaliate if Iran attacks it..
Quote
but both of us have always been aggressively defensive towards one another ever since the Korean war. Yes, that brief little respite of a kumbaya moment from the 80's was nice while it lasted, but once the Soviet threat was gone, reality intruded once again.
China today is nothing like the China of the '50s through '60s. 'Reality' is that the Chinese have been beating the US hollow at more or less their own traditional game - mass production industries sheltering behind import limits. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 19:14
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

One hopes. However  France and Britain have been publicly committed to first-strike nuclear policies. I don't think anybody knows about China, but planning on a basis of fighting something like WW2 over again doesn't seem very sensible. That's like the regurgitation of the past the French and British expected in 1939/40.


It is a bizarre world that we live in. Here we have the US with tons of nukes and chose not to use them after 9-11 in turning the middle east into a scorched radioactive wasteland. It would have been counter productive for the US to have done so for so many reasons. It would also be extremely counter productive for the Chinese to do the same against the Australians. That is basically why i do not agree with your apocalyptic scenario for Australians cities. There would be no sense in it.
I'm not predicting it, though it isn't impossible, were China to complain sufficient provocation.
 
Basically I don't see any scenario that will lead to a Chinese attack on Australia, and I certainly cannot see any scenario in which China would be worried about the deployment of a single Marine unit.

Quote
Quote
"...the fact is, Asia prefers a return to the U.S. way of peace and growth."
Wouldn't we all, especially the US?
 
The fact is that the US is going through a period of economic distress (look at the continuing unemployment figures, the housing market, the numbers of welfare recipients, the continuinig drive towards cutting basic civil services...) and simultaneouls overloading itself with an old-fashioned posture of military bullying (coupled with attempts in some places to exert financial bullying) which isn't going anywhere because there's no real place for it to go to.
 
I note you agree with me about the current sconomic state of the US, though we may differ I suspect on our assessment of the reasons for it. However that leaves it as something which he administration wishes to divert public attention from. Ancestral voices prophesying war do tend to be heard at time of domestic trouble. Especially with an administration trying to maintain and build up a regime rather more controlling than the US has traditionally been ready to put up with.
And finally, the nation's military. What the international press understands as bullying, financially or otherwise... i see it as the US trying to meet it's many commitment too it's many allies across the globe, as well as trying too look after it's own interests as best that it can, by the trillions the US has invested around the globe with an eye to profit to all and an increase to the well being and living standards of the countries the US chooses to cooperate closely with. It can't regretfully do that without the military to help look after US interests in a world that is not only still dominated by old cold war rhetoric of socialism versus capitalism, but also new rhetorical propaganda and the divergence of interests between old alliances.
[/QUOTE]
I think you're about a generation behind reality, maybe more. For thirty years the rest of the world has been helping the US keep afloat, as US debt zoomed and zoomed. In all that time the only actual threat to the US has come from gangs of essentially crazy individuals.
 
In the situation we are curretly in what has replaced the old cold war rhetoric you refer to (though I do hear it often enough from US sources still). That's a world-wide conflict between what really boils down to Keynesians and monetarists, with the parallel distinction between those forces that care for the people in general and in only partly economic terms, and those that aredetermined to maintain the power of financial capital, irrespectcive of the cost to others. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.