Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Milo » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:48 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:53 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:46 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:25 am


Transitory circumstances? When do you foresee the possibility of Germany becoming aggressive again towards Russia?
God did not gift me with powers of prophecy so I cannot see when it might happen. However their country has lived next to the Russians for centuries: more than long enough for the Poles to get the measure of their neighbours and their disposition. Do they have reason to believe that the Russian leopard has shed his spots? No! Especially after the example of Putin's bullyboy treatment of Ukraine right before their eyes. Reason enough for the Poles to run for cover.
No proof.
I am pleased to see you admit it.
But I have no doubt that the US helped to convince Poland that Russia was a terrible threat...... {/quote}
:lol:

They needed no convincing by outsiders. If you only knew Polish people as well as I do you might realise what an asinine remark that is.

(Conversely, I get the impression that your view of Russia is steeped in romantic make-believe that you would do yourself a favour to get a reality check done.)
I am a realistic sort of fellow. I do not believe that a sophisticated country like Russia, which knows the limits of its power, would put its essential interests at risk by playing the old fashioned imperial power. Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe are irrelevant to Russia, as long as they don't become pawns in the hands of the true hegemon, the US. Those countries will only become target to Russian power if they decide to house American offensive weapons against Russia. Their joining NATO was a major blunder, since as members of the European Union they could have chosen to help the EU becoming self-sufficient as far as defence is concerned, dispensing with the US altogether. But that's exactly what the US has been striving to prevent, as it would make the US irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic.
Speaking of proof. The US is striving to prevent the European Union defending itself?

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4007
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Sertorio » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:05 pm

Milo wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:48 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:53 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:46 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:25 am


Transitory circumstances? When do you foresee the possibility of Germany becoming aggressive again towards Russia?
God did not gift me with powers of prophecy so I cannot see when it might happen. However their country has lived next to the Russians for centuries: more than long enough for the Poles to get the measure of their neighbours and their disposition. Do they have reason to believe that the Russian leopard has shed his spots? No! Especially after the example of Putin's bullyboy treatment of Ukraine right before their eyes. Reason enough for the Poles to run for cover.
No proof.
I am pleased to see you admit it.
But I have no doubt that the US helped to convince Poland that Russia was a terrible threat...... {/quote}
:lol:

They needed no convincing by outsiders. If you only knew Polish people as well as I do you might realise what an asinine remark that is.

(Conversely, I get the impression that your view of Russia is steeped in romantic make-believe that you would do yourself a favour to get a reality check done.)
I am a realistic sort of fellow. I do not believe that a sophisticated country like Russia, which knows the limits of its power, would put its essential interests at risk by playing the old fashioned imperial power. Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe are irrelevant to Russia, as long as they don't become pawns in the hands of the true hegemon, the US. Those countries will only become target to Russian power if they decide to house American offensive weapons against Russia. Their joining NATO was a major blunder, since as members of the European Union they could have chosen to help the EU becoming self-sufficient as far as defence is concerned, dispensing with the US altogether. But that's exactly what the US has been striving to prevent, as it would make the US irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic.
Speaking of proof. The US is striving to prevent the European Union defending itself?
Most definitely yes!...

neverfail
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:14 pm

Hi Milo,

I would like to know your opinion on NATO's relevance; especially with regard to Canada.

There is no equivalent to NATO in the Asia-Pacific region and that I regret. NATO is multilateral. What we have in this part of the World is a series of bilateral treaties linking individual countries to the US. For example, Japan and South Korea both have a defence treaty each with the US but are not one another's allies.

This is not a satisfactory situation at all. With the emergence of China as an ambitious new power always probing for weaknesses in other nations that it can exploit; individual nations located around China's maritime rim (Australia-Japan: Australia-India: Japan-Taiwan etc) are gradually coming together to form the basis for such a defence alliance. A pity that the United States is still half hearted at providing leadership for the emerging grouping. But then under Trump's divisive (so called) leadership the USA is giving every indication of going silly.

Milo, I sometimes wonder is Sertorio is partly right and NATO might have outlived its usefulness - at least with regard to Europe?

Now, after that longish preamble I get to Canada.

NATO began during the Second Woeld War as the Anglo-US wartime alliance and Canada would have joined then as a founding member (am I right?). Other countries joined as the Cold War impelled them to come together inorder to form a mutual defence shield against the power ambitions of the USSR. But the Soviet Union went belly-up over 3 decades ago.

The question I would like to ask is: is it necessary for Canada to be a NATO member when, in traditional form, NATO would seem to have passed its use by expiry date?.

After all: Canada can take its own defence security for granted. It could never hope to win a war against the United States and luckily your neighbour to the south has respected the international frontier ever since it was negotiated and a treaty signed in 1848. Conversely, had Canada ever been invaded by an external foreign power (say, by the USSR over the Arctic when at the peak of its power) you could have counted on US forces being there to defend your country - even if the Canadians did not want them to. :)

(Umn..we Australians do not have our country in a geographical location where it is indespensible to the defence security of the United States itself; so we - sort of - need to work harder to make ourselves useful. Which is probably why we sent some of our troops to help out the Americans in their Vietnam war misadventure {not to mention in the Middle east and in Afghanistan} whereas Canada, wisely, abstained from doing so).

So Milo: does Canada really gain anything by belonging to NATO? If so, then what?

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Egypt, Turkey send troops into Libya.

Post by Milo » Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:59 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:14 pm
Hi Milo,

I would like to know your opinion on NATO's relevance; especially with regard to Canada.

There is no equivalent to NATO in the Asia-Pacific region and that I regret. NATO is multilateral. What we have in this part of the World is a series of bilateral treaties linking individual countries to the US. For example, Japan and South Korea both have a defence treaty each with the US but are not one another's allies.

This is not a satisfactory situation at all. With the emergence of China as an ambitious new power always probing for weaknesses in other nations that it can exploit; individual nations located around China's maritime rim (Australia-Japan: Australia-India: Japan-Taiwan etc) are gradually coming together to form the basis for such a defence alliance. A pity that the United States is still half hearted at providing leadership for the emerging grouping. But then under Trump's divisive (so called) leadership the USA is giving every indication of going silly.

Milo, I sometimes wonder is Sertorio is partly right and NATO might have outlived its usefulness - at least with regard to Europe?

Now, after that longish preamble I get to Canada.

NATO began during the Second Woeld War as the Anglo-US wartime alliance and Canada would have joined then as a founding member (am I right?). Other countries joined as the Cold War impelled them to come together inorder to form a mutual defence shield against the power ambitions of the USSR. But the Soviet Union went belly-up over 3 decades ago.

The question I would like to ask is: is it necessary for Canada to be a NATO member when, in traditional form, NATO would seem to have passed its use by expiry date?.

After all: Canada can take its own defence security for granted. It could never hope to win a war against the United States and luckily your neighbour to the south has respected the international frontier ever since it was negotiated and a treaty signed in 1848. Conversely, had Canada ever been invaded by an external foreign power (say, by the USSR over the Arctic when at the peak of its power) you could have counted on US forces being there to defend your country - even if the Canadians did not want them to. :)

(Umn..we Australians do not have our country in a geographical location where it is indespensible to the defence security of the United States itself; so we - sort of - need to work harder to make ourselves useful. Which is probably why we sent some of our troops to help out the Americans in their Vietnam war misadventure {not to mention in the Middle east and in Afghanistan} whereas Canada, wisely, abstained from doing so).

So Milo: does Canada really gain anything by belonging to NATO? If so, then what?
Some Canadians, myself included, take great pride in being a founding member of NATO. And in facilitating Article 2 which committed members to maintain a "free" political system and to promote economic cooperation. Article 2 makes NATO more than a military alliance, its members share values.

In addition, NATO gives Canada intelligence support and defence technological support as well as some additional protection for our trade.

neverfail
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Canada, Australia as US allies - a contrast.

Post by neverfail » Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:51 am

So Milo: does Canada really gain anything by belonging to NATO? If so, then what?
Milo wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:59 pm
Some Canadians, myself included, take great pride in being a founding member of NATO. And in facilitating Article 2 which committed members to maintain a "free" political system and to promote economic cooperation. Article 2 makes NATO more than a military alliance, its members share values.
National pride? Shared values? All " feel good" stuff Milo but that is not the reason why nations enter into and sustain alliances.
In addition, NATO gives Canada intelligence support and defence technological support as well as some additional protection for our trade.
Now we get down to the nitty-gritty.

That about sums up what we Australians get out of our bilateral treaty (it used to be trilateral before New Zealand screwed up) with the United States. However, it seems to me that Canada has obtained these at a far cheaper price than Australia:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .tb00114.x

The American Role in Australian Involvement in the Vietnam War


Please note that this American pressure on us to send Australian troops to Vietnam was never made public by our government. Instead our government of the day concocted a set of plausable but bogus excuses for sending them ; like labelling 'A Communist takeover of South Vietnam part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans' - Prime Minister R G Menzies, April 1965. (Dog-whistle, hint-hint: since Australia Is located at the end of a long chain of islands located between the Indian and Pacific Oceans then obviously it is OUR country that those Asian Commos want to take over as ultimate aim). Believe it or not, back in 1965 there were plenty of Australians who wanted to believe that sort of tosh: the red memace myth, a bi-product of the Cold War scare, underlain by a more primal perception of the yellow peril coveting our lovely country. :(

In other words, our government lied to us. What was in fact nothing but a diplomatic courtesy to our US ally was pumped up, distorted and misrepresented publically as a response to an external threat to the nation.

Indeed, that entire Vietnam involvement (from the US side even more than ours) was based on nothing other than a pack of lies.

Do you know what happens when a government lies to its own people Milo? It destroys public trust and condfidence in the institution of government itself. The risnig tumult and violent disorder within the United States corresponding with the (1964 - 68) years of the Johnson presidency can now with hindsight easily be seen in that light.

...........................................................................................................................................

I recall as the guest of friends in Germany while the Cold War was still under way: we were on a sunday drive out in the country when we overtook an army truck laden with Canadian soldiers. That incident to me seems to symbolise the difference. Your government in the 1960's (like the UK) had the plausable argument that Canada was already contributing to the defence of the West by way of it's contingent in West Germany - 'sending our troops to Vietman would stretch our resources and weaken our European committment'(or words to that effect). But since Australia had no soldiers in Europe our American allies took the opportrunity to screw us.

(..and based upon that past precedent they have been screwing us ever since - Iraq, Afghanistan - in what way were either of these two ever a military threat ot Australia?. What appalls me is that Australian governments always seem ever too eager to go along with the charade.)

The point is that in all of those decades that Canada kept sending its soldiers to Europe they were never once called upon to go into actual combat. Were I a Canadian I would consider my country to have been very lucky. You folk over there got, and still get, the benefits of your alliance with the US very cheaply.

We, by contrast, had to suffer over 500 deaths in Vietnam alone.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4007
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Canada, Australia as US allies - a contrast.

Post by Sertorio » Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:39 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:51 am

Please note that this American pressure on us to send Australian troops to Vietnam was never made public by our government. Instead our government of the day concocted a set of plausable but bogus excuses for sending them ; like labelling 'A Communist takeover of South Vietnam part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans' - Prime Minister R G Menzies, April 1965. (Dog-whistle, hint-hint: since Australia Is located at the end of a long chain of islands located between the Indian and Pacific Oceans then obviously it is OUR country that those Asian Commos want to take over as ultimate aim). Believe it or not, back in 1965 there were plenty of Australians who wanted to believe that sort of tosh: the red memace myth, a bi-product of the Cold War scare, underlain by a more primal perception of the yellow peril coveting our lovely country. :(

In other words, our government lied to us. What was in fact nothing but a diplomatic courtesy to our US ally was pumped up, distorted and misrepresented publically as a response to an external threat to the nation.

Indeed, that entire Vietnam involvement (from the US side even more than ours) was based on nothing other than a pack of lies.

Do you know what happens when a government lies to its own people Milo? It destroys public trust and condfidence in the institution of government itself. The risnig tumult and violent disorder within the United States corresponding with the (1964 - 68) years of the Johnson presidency can now with hindsight easily be seen in that light.
Having written this, do you still believe that US military interventions are meant to safeguard freedom and democracy? The US is an imperial power which uses naked violence to further its interests. To do so it will lie, misrepresent, threaten, sanction, and finally will use military force to impose its will on any country opposing its interests. And Australia follows the lead, and will risk Australians lives on the pursuit of illegitimate foreign designs. China is no threat to Australia, even if it becomes the dominant power in Asia. China will not invade Australia or its allies, it will not wage war on Australia, all it wants is trading with Australia. Why can't Australia accept that?...

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4007
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Canada, Australia as US allies - a contrast.

Post by Sertorio » Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:31 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:39 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:51 am

Please note that this American pressure on us to send Australian troops to Vietnam was never made public by our government. Instead our government of the day concocted a set of plausable but bogus excuses for sending them ; like labelling 'A Communist takeover of South Vietnam part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans' - Prime Minister R G Menzies, April 1965. (Dog-whistle, hint-hint: since Australia Is located at the end of a long chain of islands located between the Indian and Pacific Oceans then obviously it is OUR country that those Asian Commos want to take over as ultimate aim). Believe it or not, back in 1965 there were plenty of Australians who wanted to believe that sort of tosh: the red memace myth, a bi-product of the Cold War scare, underlain by a more primal perception of the yellow peril coveting our lovely country. :(

In other words, our government lied to us. What was in fact nothing but a diplomatic courtesy to our US ally was pumped up, distorted and misrepresented publically as a response to an external threat to the nation.

Indeed, that entire Vietnam involvement (from the US side even more than ours) was based on nothing other than a pack of lies.

Do you know what happens when a government lies to its own people Milo? It destroys public trust and condfidence in the institution of government itself. The risnig tumult and violent disorder within the United States corresponding with the (1964 - 68) years of the Johnson presidency can now with hindsight easily be seen in that light.
Having written this, do you still believe that US military interventions are meant to safeguard freedom and democracy? The US is an imperial power which uses naked violence to further its interests. To do so it will lie, misrepresent, threaten, sanction, and finally will use military force to impose its will on any country opposing its interests. And Australia follows the lead, and will risk Australians lives on the pursuit of illegitimate foreign designs. China is no threat to Australia, even if it becomes the dominant power in Asia. China will not invade Australia or its allies, it will not wage war on Australia, all it wants is trading with Australia. Why can't Australia accept that?...
Image

neverfail
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Canada, Australia as US allies - a contrast.

Post by neverfail » Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:50 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:51 am

Please note that this American pressure on us to send Australian troops to Vietnam was never made public by our government. Instead our government of the day concocted a set of plausable but bogus excuses for sending them ; like labelling 'A Communist takeover of South Vietnam part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans' - Prime Minister R G Menzies, April 1965. (Dog-whistle, hint-hint: since Australia Is located at the end of a long chain of islands located between the Indian and Pacific Oceans then obviously it is OUR country that those Asian Commos want to take over as ultimate aim). Believe it or not, back in 1965 there were plenty of Australians who wanted to believe that sort of tosh: the red memace myth, a bi-product of the Cold War scare, underlain by a more primal perception of the yellow peril coveting our lovely country. :(

In other words, our government lied to us. What was in fact nothing but a diplomatic courtesy to our US ally was pumped up, distorted and misrepresented publically as a response to an external threat to the nation.

Indeed, that entire Vietnam involvement (from the US side even more than ours) was based on nothing other than a pack of lies.

Do you know what happens when a government lies to its own people Milo? It destroys public trust and condfidence in the institution of government itself. The risnig tumult and violent disorder within the United States corresponding with the (1964 - 68) years of the Johnson presidency can now with hindsight easily be seen in that light.
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:39 am
Having written this, do you still believe that US military interventions are meant to safeguard freedom and democracy?
I wish to God that the United States were politically much more mature than it actually is but I might as well wish for the moon while I am at it.

Let me put it to you like this Sertorio: when I contemplate a world in which the USSR won the Cold War and subsequently was free to reshape the World in its own image and likeness, I thank God that, for lack of a better option it was the USA that emerged as number one.

Not perfect by any means but still better than the alternative.
The US is an imperial power which uses naked violence to further its interests.
Despite all of your efforts to smear America's image as such (do not complain about "profiling" and "stereotyping" Sertorio as you do that to the USA regularly in your posts) I still utterly disagree that the country itself is like that. As I explained above: the ill advised decision to ramp up US troop numbers in Vietnam that came after LBJ had won his 1964 election victory over Barry Goldwater was very much his own. I know not what political calculations went through his mind when he made that decision but I doubt whether imperialist adventurism was among them.

George Bush Jr's inaguration of the 2003 invasion of Iraq seems to follow the same broad pattern. In his case I believe that the decision might have had more to do with image creation for domestic consumption. His father had suffered the indignity of being a one-term president because he had acquired the image of being a "wimp" (i.e. a vacallating sissy). Son did not wish to walk in dad's footsteps.

I have long had the impression that US presidents have too much discretionary power in choosing the nation's foreign policy course and are not held sufficiently to account for the consequences afterwards. Therein lies the problem.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Canada, Australia as US allies - a contrast.

Post by Milo » Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:10 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:51 am
So Milo: does Canada really gain anything by belonging to NATO? If so, then what?
Milo wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:59 pm
Some Canadians, myself included, take great pride in being a founding member of NATO. And in facilitating Article 2 which committed members to maintain a "free" political system and to promote economic cooperation. Article 2 makes NATO more than a military alliance, its members share values.
National pride? Shared values? All " feel good" stuff Milo but that is not the reason why nations enter into and sustain alliances.
But on the other hand Neverfail, there was also SEATO and CENTO. They are long gone. Why? I think because they were only alliances on paper and their members didn't share values.

The only NATO member who doesn't is Turkey and it's Islamist and authoritarian turn is fairly recent. Prior to Erdogan, Turkey was secular and lawful, if not so democratic.

No other multilateral alliance in history can approach the success of NATO. And it continues to attract new members.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4007
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Canada, Australia as US allies - a contrast.

Post by Sertorio » Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:13 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:50 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:39 am
Having written this, do you still believe that US military interventions are meant to safeguard freedom and democracy?
I wish to God that the United States were politically much more mature than it actually is but I might as well wish for the moon while I am at it.

Let me put it to you like this Sertorio: when I contemplate a world in which the USSR won the Cold War and subsequently was free to reshape the World in its own image and likeness, I thank God that, for lack of a better option it was the USA that emerged as number one.

Not perfect by any means but still better than the alternative.
Let us admit that the US was useful to contain the Soviet Union's ambitions. That problem ended in 1989, but the US is still trying to keep Europe under control by means of a totally fake threat from Russia. Any sane person knows that Russia is no threat to us - not even to Poland, in spite of their paranoia - but the US will not let it go. Let's hope the main European leaders (Germany and France) are beginning to understand that and will act accordingly. Fortunately the UK is no longer there to stop us becoming independent from the US.

Post Reply