| 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
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: U.S. sending Marines to Australia?
    Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 00:10
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



Edited by SPQR - 17 Nov 2011 at 00:11
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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: 17 Nov 2011 at 01:06
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.
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: 17 Nov 2011 at 02:12
There is no comparison between Australia and China. The scale doesn't match.
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: 17 Nov 2011 at 02:19
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...
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 04:28
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



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.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 04:31
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.
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Nov 2011 at 05:40
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
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: 17 Nov 2011 at 10:54
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.

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: 17 Nov 2011 at 11:36
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.


Edited by Constantine XI - 17 Nov 2011 at 11:38
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 00:53
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


Edited by pinguin - 18 Nov 2011 at 00:54
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 01:52
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.
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 02:00
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
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 02:04
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?
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 02:13
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.


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: 18 Nov 2011 at 02:19
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.
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 04:01
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
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 04:56
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.
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 08:00
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.


Edited by Constantine XI - 18 Nov 2011 at 08:03
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 10:21
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
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 11:23
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.

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: 18 Nov 2011 at 11:50
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?
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 13:27
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.

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: 18 Nov 2011 at 13:44
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.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 13:53
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
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 13:58
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
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 14:40
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.

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: 18 Nov 2011 at 15:00
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
"...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.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 18 Nov 2011 at 15:02
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 15:59
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
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: 18 Nov 2011 at 16:14
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.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Nov 2011 at 16:40
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
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 0.187 seconds.