| 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
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

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

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Hello Mr. Jingo, how are you today?

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

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


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

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

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

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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

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

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

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



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


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 16 Mar 2012 at 03:09
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

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

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


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

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4898
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 06:12
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

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



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


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

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

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

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

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