Print Page | Close Window

U.S. sending Marines to Australia?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Australia, SE Asia & Pacific
Forum Description: Discuss the history of SE Asia: Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore etc..
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=127142
Printed Date: 17 Jul 2019 at 19:23
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: U.S. sending Marines to Australia?
Posted By: SPQR
Subject: U.S. sending Marines to Australia?
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 10:10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15739995" rel="nofollow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15739995


what do you guys make of this??



another strange story as well

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/314538" rel="nofollow - Gobi Desert Spy Satellite targets



-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein



Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 11:06
The US is recognising that the north Atlantic is no longer the area requiring the most protection, nor that it has all that much worth protecting any longer. The focus has shifted to Asia and the Pacific.

Resource hungry China has been casting her covetous eyes south, throwing her weight around in the south China sea on the one hand militarily (Spratley Islands, etc). On the other hand, economically, she last year bought up two months' worth of ore in a bid to pressure the Australian mining industry to relax its ownership restrictions and allow state owned Chinese corporations to buy a percentage of the big Australian mining firms by threatening a moratorium on buying of Australian ore. The move failed, the Australian government backed the miners to the hilt. I have a feeling China will try again one day.

While the powers in our region have been operating with some degree of ambiguity as to who they were partners and polite rivals with, developments here lately have given distinction to these blurry lines and rough blocs seem to be forming. Australia, despite its strong trade links with China, is affirming its military relationship with the United States and PM Julia Gillard is now pushing to allow the sale of uranium to India (no friend of China in the region).

The move is a smart one for both the US and Australia. The US is wisely redeploying its military clout where it matters most and will secure the best return on investment.

Australia enjoys the economic benefits of having 2500 US troops spending their wages here and buying Australian logistical support, the military benefits of training and collaborating with a highly professional military partner, and the diplomatic clout which results from demonstrating to nascent powers like China that Australia can pick and choose her friends and is not beholden to any single overseas nation.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 12:12
There is no comparison between Australia and China. The scale doesn't match.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 12:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

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


In terms of geographic size they are pretty similar.

I'm not sure what your point is here...


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 14:28
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15739995" rel="nofollow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15739995


what do you guys make of this??



another strange story as well

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/314538" rel="nofollow - Gobi Desert Spy Satellite targets



What i think, geopolitically, might the participation of Australia in most conflicts involving the US since the second world war about to be paying off in spades.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 14:31
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.


Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 15:40
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

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



And your point is???

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 20:54
I don't know about Australian politics, but Obama is desperate to maintain the image of the US as a power player. Militarily the deployment of 2,500 men means nothing.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 21:36
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

I don't know about Australian politics, but Obama is desperate to maintain the image of the US as a power player.


PM Julia Gillard a couple of months back sank to some of the lowest approval ratings ever for a serving Aussie PM - 26%. This itself is a combination of her role in knifing the last PM Rudd while he was in office, lingering dissatisfaction with the Rudd's policy failures (she was a key part of his cabinet), ever more dissatisfaction with Gillard's even more striking policy failures (compromises with elements to appeal to all in the political spectrum that just leave everyone dissatisfied), and her own lack of distinct charisma or vision for the country.

A foreign policy win for her is a needed political victory after a year of lethargy and underachievement. It also takes some off the gloss away from the foreign affairs achievements of current Foreign Minister Rudd - the man she knifed last year while he was PM and the one considered most likely to challenge her in future should she prove too unpopular that he sees his chance to extract the dagger from between his shoulder blades and 'return' it to her.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 10:53
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

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


In terms of geographic size they are pretty similar.

I'm not sure what your point is here...


You can't compare the Antarctic with Australia. The first lack people, no matter is a huge desert of ice. The same relation exist between Australia and China Wink


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 11:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

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


In terms of geographic size they are pretty similar.

I'm not sure what your point is here...


You can't compare the Antarctic with Australia. The first lack people, no matter is a huge desert of ice. The same relation exist between Australia and China Wink


I agree. Australians are better fed, better educated, have a much more stable political system, are far wealthier, are far more secure from military attack, enjoy far better relations with other countries, have much more powerful allies, live longer, smoke less, enjoy better health, suffer fewer internecine troubles and ethnic tensions, suffer fewer terrorist attacks.....

wow I could go on all day. You're right, there is no real comparison between China and Australia.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 12:00
Sure. Please continue.
But remember that if only 1% of the Chinese population has the Australian standar of living, that's the population of Australia  LOL


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 12:04
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Sure. Please continue.
But remember that if only 1% of the Chinese population has the Australian standar of living, that's the population of Australia  LOL


So what?

Why would I be proud of 20 million of my people living in wealth while ignoring that fact that 1,000,000,000 others are living in misery and squalor?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 12:13
China is growing fast. For instance, you could bet who has the more advanced railroads, the more powerful rockets or the tallest buildings. And you could also bet who buys cars to whom.




Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 12:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

China is growing fast. For instance, you could bet who has the more advanced railroads, the more powerful rockets or the tallest buildings. And you could also bet who buys cars to whom.




They are still very far behind us in most measures of quality of life.

What are they meant to boast with? "My building is taller than yours so that makes up for all the hundreds of millions of my people who live in poverty..."

The Emirates has a taller building than any in China. It makes no difference.


Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 14:01
I started this thread to discuss the U.S. sending troops to Australia and wanted to hear opinions from (some) knowledgeable people on this forum. We could possibly discuss what this deployment of troops means for the region and or a possible reaction from China. Also I wanted to hear from people whether this decision was good or bad to put it bluntly.

Yet again like so many other threads on this forum, this thread is becoming a pointless knuckle-dragging banter of hyper nationalistic nonsense.

Leave it to Pinguin to take any discussion and turn it into an argument about which nation is better.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 14:56
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

I started this thread to discuss the U.S. sending troops to Australia and wanted to hear opinions from (some) knowledgeable people on this forum. We could possibly discuss what this deployment of troops means for the region and or a possible reaction from China. Also I wanted to hear from people whether this decision was good or bad to put it bluntly.


The Chinese will bi@tch about it and then get over it by looking to other weaker treaty enforced areas to extract resources from.

As for this being good or bad decision, that depends on where your personal bias lays. Though i have absolutely nothing against the Chinese or their efforts in securing the resources they need to provide for their people. I do have my expectations in how they should go about doing this. One of those expectations is not to cross the line in overtly intimidating, bullying or acting aggressively against another country to gets it's way. Bluff can only carry all the rest of us so far until some stupid act plunges the rest of the region over the abyss.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 18:00
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

I started this thread to discuss the U.S. sending troops to Australia and wanted to hear opinions from (some) knowledgeable people on this forum. We could possibly discuss what this deployment of troops means for the region and or a possible reaction from China. Also I wanted to hear from people whether this decision was good or bad to put it bluntly.

Yet again like so many other threads on this forum, this thread is becoming a pointless knuckle-dragging banter of hyper nationalistic nonsense.

Leave it to Pinguin to take any discussion and turn it into an argument about which nation is better.


I'm sorry to say he has derailed it, and I couldn't sit by and ignore him like a proper adult.

I agree, let's get back on topic.

Frankly I think the decision here is in the interests of both nations. Australia may dabble with the idea that it is an Asian nation with its destiny incumbent upon the goodwill and acceptance of the customs and norms of its Asian neighbours.

But reality says something very different. Our Asian neighbours need our raw resources and promise of military neutrality far more than we need anything which they may have to offer.

China may posture and attempt to throw her weight around. But at the end of the day she will not threaten Australia's territorial integrity. And she cannot afford to antagonise too much the world's #1 iron ore producer, #2 gold producer, the most uranium rich country on the planet, and the nation in the 21st century which looks set to enjoy the most fruitful per capita surplus of agricultural produce of any nation on the planet.

And even nations like Indonesia, much as they may not like a largely white continuation of western civilisation on their doorstep, they nonetheless recognise that Australia poses no real imperialistic threat to her neighbours. China does.

After the wistful and nonsensical Keating-era notions of 'needing' the nations of Asia have been swept aside after being soberly assessed for what they are, Australia has returned to cementing its relationship with the wealthiest and most powerful country on the globe (and one which it has more in common with culturally and politically than its Asian neighbours). This is to be applauded as a step back towards pragmatic reality.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 20:21
A last hurrah in the US imperialist expansion.
 
The US won't gain a thing strategically from this move. They have enough men across Asia to deter the Chinese. This move is most likely initiated by the Aussies who are committing a massive strategic mistake.
 
This move in my opinion will alienate the enitre SEA region especially Australia's big neighbour Indonesia. It will strengthen the suspicion of those nations that Australia is the regional policeman and this as well as if an idiot like Howard finds his way back to office will push those countries firmly towards China.
 
What is even worse is that all of this sucking up to the US won't work when the final day of reckoning comes and this US and China begin fighting for Indonesia (which has 250 million people, more than all of SEA combined) and the Indonesians who long have had a grudge against Australia and will never ever trust the Chinese start making demands. Guess who will pay the price.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 21:23
It would take about 15 minutes to make a leaderless shambles out of Australia. 2,500 marines aren't going to make any difference to that.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 21:50
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It would take about 15 minutes to make a leaderless shambles out of Australia. 2,500 marines aren't going to make any difference to that.


Could you please clarify what you mean by that?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 23:27
Take out Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Canberra, and what are 2,500 marines going to do?
 
In fact what are they going to do in far less dramatic scenarios than that?
 
I doubt that China will pay any serious attention to the move at all, seeing it only as an attempt to bolster the domestic political chances of the administrations involved. (They may of course pretend to, since they have domestic political needs of their own.)


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 23:44
Quote Take out Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Canberra, and what are 2,500 marines going to do?
 
In fact what are they going to do in far less dramatic scenarios than that?


"Taking out" any of those cities would be met with a nuclear response. The USA won't run out of money to maintain its nuclear arsenal, which remains the most technologically advanced in the world.

Power projection in this day and age is more about supporting insurgents, conducting special ops and providing specialised forces that can achieve precision goals. This is especially so in our region, where archipelagoes provide an environment where small elite forces can achieve maximum advantage. 2,500 specialists are more useful in our backyard than 50,000 grunts. If we want to stop a territorial incursion we will rely on our superior submarine fleet and airpower. Boots on the ground mean nothing here when they can't cross the air or ocean.

Quote I doubt that China will pay any serious attention to the move at all, seeing it only as an attempt to bolster the domestic political chances of the administrations involved. (They may of course pretend to, since they have domestic political needs of their own.)


China enjoys little love from her smaller Asian neighbours. It is America which is ringing China with military bases, rather than the other way around. This latest development is simply another development in that plan.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 23:53
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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


Good grief! Even the Chinese wouldn't consider such a move.

Quote
I doubt that China will pay any serious attention to the move at all, seeing it only as an attempt to bolster the domestic political chances of the administrations involved. (They may of course pretend to, since they have domestic political needs of their own.)


I think the Chinese leadership may be paying some serious attention to this move

http://news.investors.com/Article/591952/201111161902/Asia-Tigers-Pick-US-Over-China.htm" rel="nofollow - http://news.investors.com/Article/591952/201111161902/Asia-Tigers-Pick-US-Over-China.htm


Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 23:58
Sending 2,500 Marines to Australia is nothing more than a message to China, similar to when the U.S. had a carrier battle-group patrol the Taiwan strait. Sometimes I look forward to the day the U.S. no longer plays world police and let other country's worry about their own problems. However playing world police has had a role in allowing the U.S. to be the current most powerful country on Earth; it is a double edged sword. Whenever there is a conflict,it seems as if the U.S. is either causing it or somehow involved.

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

The next 50-100 years are going to be interesting.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 00:40
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quote Take out Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Canberra, and what are 2,500 marines going to do?
 
In fact what are they going to do in far less dramatic scenarios than that?


"Taking out" any of those cities would be met with a nuclear response.
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.
Quote
 
The USA won't run out of money to maintain its nuclear arsenal, which remains the most technologically advanced in the world.
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?
Quote
Power projection in this day and age is more about supporting insurgents, conducting special ops and providing specialised forces that can achieve precision goals. This is especially so in our region, where archipelagoes provide an environment where small elite forces can achieve maximum advantage. 2,500 specialists are more useful in our backyard than 50,000 grunts. If we want to stop a territorial incursion we will rely on our superior submarine fleet and airpower. Boots on the ground mean nothing here when they can't cross the air or ocean.
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?
Quote
Quote I doubt that China will pay any serious attention to the move at all, seeing it only as an attempt to bolster the domestic political chances of the administrations involved. (They may of course pretend to, since they have domestic political needs of their own.)


China enjoys little love from her smaller Asian neighbours. It is America which is ringing China with military bases, rather than the other way around. This latest development is simply another development in that plan.
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.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 01:00
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

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


Good grief! Even the Chinese wouldn't consider such a move.
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.

Quote
Quote
I doubt that China will pay any serious attention to the move at all, seeing it only as an attempt to bolster the domestic political chances of the administrations involved. (They may of course pretend to, since they have domestic political needs of their own.)


I think the Chinese leadership may be paying some serious attention to this move

http://news.investors.com/Article/591952/201111161902/Asia-Tigers-Pick-US-Over-China.htm" rel="nofollow - http://news.investors.com/Article/591952/201111161902/Asia-Tigers-Pick-US-Over-China.htm
"...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.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 01:59
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

Sending 2,500 Marines to Australia is nothing more than a message to China, similar to when the U.S. had a carrier battle-group patrol the Taiwan strait. Sometimes I look forward to the day the U.S. no longer plays world police and let other country's worry about their own problems. However playing world police has had a role in allowing the U.S. to be the current most powerful country on Earth; it is a double edged sword. Whenever there is a conflict,it seems as if the U.S. is either causing it or somehow involved.

A message the Chinese know isn't worth the cost. A real message is sending 2500 marines to Indonesia or conducting military exercises with Vietnam.

 
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.
 
 
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.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 02:14
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

The Chinese will bi@tch about it and then get over it by looking to other weaker treaty enforced areas to extract resources from.
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?
Quote
As for this being good or bad decision, that depends on where your personal bias lays. Though i have absolutely nothing against the Chinese or their efforts in securing the resources they need to provide for their people. I do have my expectations in how they should go about doing this. One of those expectations is not to cross the line in overtly intimidating, bullying or acting aggressively against another country to gets it's way. Bluff can only carry all the rest of us so far until some stupid act plunges the rest of the region over the abyss.
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?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 02:40
Come now Graham, are you angling for the US to "take out" Luxembourg as a hot-bed of anti-Americanism? The deployment of a forward presence in Northern Australia may be little more than symbolic, but it does generate an "air of cooperation" in the event of potential mayhem in Australasia.
Look back at the military history of the Darwin area and notice its role as a forward point into the South China Sea. However, there has to be more than meets-the-eye here with respect to the nature of the envisioned "base". After all the nucleus of 250 men highlighting the "Asia-Pacific Summit" hardly constitutes as aggressive a presence as the bases in the Persian Gulf region and little reason exists for considering the effort save in the envisioning of a new "Frankfurt am der Outback"!Wink


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 04:50
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Come now Graham, are you angling for the US to "take out" Luxembourg as a hot-bed of anti-Americanism?
Not anti-Americanism. As I noted it would be very good for all idf one could get back to the days of peace and growth in the US. More a question of being anti-deflationary, and hence being anti- anything the prime purpose of which is to create and sustain deflation.
Quote
The deployment of a forward presence in Northern Australia may be little more than symbolic, but it does generate an "air of cooperation" in the event of potential mayhem in Australasia.
I don't think it is even symbolic of anything significant. The 2,500 men ultimately expected represents the smallest possible self-sufficient American military command, a Marine Expeditionary Unit. It would obviously be of no use in defending Australia, and less useful than it would be anywhere else in the SE Asian region, and no faster to deploy.
 
I already asked whether the Senate had ratified the treaty.
Quote  
Look back at the military history of the Darwin area and notice its role as a forward point into the South China Sea. However, there has to be more than meets-the-eye here with respect to the nature of the envisioned "base". After all the nucleus of 250 men highlighting the "Asia-Pacific Summit" hardly constitutes as aggressive a presence as the bases in the Persian Gulf region and little reason exists for considering the effort save in the envisioning of a new "Frankfurt am der Outback"!Wink
Agreed there would have to be something more than meets-the-eye here for it to mean anything, but I don't think there is. Given the current machinations in the Eurozone the reference to a new Frankfurt is apposite (has Australia signed up to continue tax-cutting and cutting goverbment expenditure on US lines somewhere in the wings?) but that's maybe a different topic.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 10:37
 

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.

 

Al-Jassas
[/QUOTE]

I don't make foreign policy for my country. I am only stating what I personally believe my country should do. A nation's sovereignty is probably the most important thing, people die for it. Protecting another nation's sovereignty is called doing the right thing. If you look at U.S. history, we have a bad habit with hurting the sovereignty of other nations, a change would be nice. Look at Libya this year, we aided the rebels in overthrowing a brutal, corrupt regime and the best part was we did not put boots on the ground we let them the people of Libya earn their freedom, all we did was give them a nudge.

When would Australia become a burden for the US? what was the last ally we sold out? South Vietnam? Pakistan? both weren't very good allies anyway and one we should not have even helped.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 14:02
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.

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.
 


Oh boy... What are we to expect in a service based economy with a over taxed middle class. Why should unemployment figures change when nothing is being created and businesses are fleeing certain states (Which i have consistently highlighted before and and Steve Jobs himself had confirmed my belief and basically reprimanded Obama for) where it is a burden to operate their business due to high taxation and government regulation.

Let's not even go into the housing market issue where any further discussion turns into the politics of schizophrenia. Barney Frank had admitted that he had over reacted due to his paranoia and political bias.  Remember when the creation of welfare was a good thing, that is until the number of recipients outnumbered the ones who pay the taxes and all the rest of the goodies.

And the effort in cutting of basic civil services, from the way i understand it, has to do with the growth of the public service sector and this idea of them having a job for life thanks to their unions, where as the private sector unions could never have cut such a sweet deal for such a length of time. What is a government too say when it is the biggest employer of basic services when it can no longer meet the payroll of those life time employees.

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.

I am not a unilateralist Graham and not by my choice thanks ever since the administration of FDR and the changed circumstances following the second world war, have i had to adopt a multilateralist approach in foreign affairs. I believe in working with our allies and corresponding organizations across the globe in securing a region for today's peace rather than turn our backs on tomorrows possible war. The ironies abound in that as much as i commend President Obama for many of his foreign policy decisions, as well as criticizing him for his mistakes, i feel he is basically correct in trying to refocus our attention away from a Europe that says it can handle it's own problems to a region of a globe where other Asian & South Pacific countries are extremely nervous of the revitalized devil they know, re: China.
 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 14:26
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.


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, 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.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 18:48
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I don't know about Australian politics, but Obama is desperate to maintain the image of the US as a power player. Militarily the deployment of 2,500 men means nothing.


Exactly what I was thinking.


-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2011 at 23:31
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 pretty much doubt that the first strike policy was intended for a terrorist incident. It was directed against the USSR in case WWIII erupts and the USSR intends to occupy western europe with its 77k tanks! (according to Soviet plans the USSR should have reached Lyon by D-day +14).
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 01:00
Hmmm...a lot of geopolitics and very little historical perspective with respect to the United States and the Chinese intellectual mindset. Look at it from a historical perspective and the impact of America on China going back to the colonial period and the introduction of silver into Chinese politics.  It was only Washington's rejection of Mao as a "Soviet Puppet" that disrupted the traditional affinity between Chinese intellectuals and the United States, which was the actual "model" envisioned by Sun Yat Tzen as the old Chinese class system disintegrated at the opening of the 20th century. There was much more than met the eye when Chou en Lai and Henry the "K" began nuzzling each other in the early 70s, and the subsequent history of China after the advent of Deng turned the Chinese state into a mirror image of the political and diplomatic punting on the Potomac. Think about it and realize that whatver tit-for-tat the diplomats mutter the economic wonks row a markedly different punt.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 03:53
It would be interesting to see the reaction to a Chinese marine task force being stationed in Venezuela, on the basis that it was an important ally, and US intentions in the region were a cause for anxiety, given past aggressive military moves. The weeping, wailing, and pulling out of six-shooters would be massive.
 
It's too bad as much effort couldn't be put into enlightened dialogue as is put into moving marines about.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 05:14
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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 07:00
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.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2011 at 10:30
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.


Posted By: Birddog
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 06:05

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



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 08:37
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.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 09:10
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.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 12:56
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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 21:57
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.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2011 at 23:18
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.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 05:48
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.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 06:36
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!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 08:55
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.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 11:26
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.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 11:48
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.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 19:54

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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 23:17
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.



Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 03:55
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15739995" rel="nofollow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15739995


what do you guys make of this??



another strange story as well

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/314538" rel="nofollow - 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.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 04:05
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.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 04:11


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.


Posted By: Paradigm of Humanity
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 05:48
Hello Mr. Jingo, how are you today?


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 07:04
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.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 10:15
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


Posted By: Paradigm of Humanity
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 13:17
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


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 01:37
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.



Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 04:36

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.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 02:25
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.  


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 12:47
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. 




-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Paradigm of Humanity
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 13:03
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.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/813/refk.jpg/" rel="nofollow">

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


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 23:39
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.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 16:12
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.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net