Posted on 06/04/2019 2:37:56 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
It’t called, Pride.
Seems maybe these sailors are not too proud.
Man ya work your ass off to be proud. Of the Men, the Ship, your country that you represent, yourself.
You know that.
I
No, it’s not nonsense.
Read the treaty. It’s not long and it’s not complicated (unlike some).
It wasn’t secret - it wasn’t widely publicised but it wasn’t secret.
And it was a reciprocal visit - Australia warships also visit China.
Was it a show of force on China’s part? Sure.
Australia has done some freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea.
It’s how the game is played.
100 years of carrier ops vs a newbie
For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific..
Howard and Downer accurately described what the ANZUS Treaty says - it only takes effect if there is an attack on the metropolitan territory or in the Pacific on one of the partners.
This is exactly what I told you earlier and which you objected to.
ANZUS is not automatically triggered because America goes to war with China and that is exactly what Howard and Downer said years ago. Yes, it could be triggered if such a war started by an attack by China on American forces in the Pacific, but that's only one of a number of possible scenarios.
Some low information people in the media tried to spin this into some crap about Australia backing away from its alliance with the United States. This was not true - it was dishonest and misleading.
Australia has come to the aid of the United States militarily repeatedly over the last sixty or seventy years. We've been one of America's staunchest allies. The only time ANZUS has been the reason for that is in Afghanistan.
We have supported the US time and time again - and, yes, the US has supported us in turn, most notably with access to American military technologies, but also significantly in East Timor on a number of occasions (this is leaving aside the Second World War, when the United States was absolutely critical in ensuring Australia continued to survive as a nation at all). In terms of China, in recent years, Australia has been - at US request - engaged in freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea.
Frankly at this point, I don't think Australia should be expected to constantly explain the fact it takes the alliance seriously. We have proven that time and time again.
Yes, we would also like decent relationships with China. They are a major trading partner and they are massively more powerful than us in military terms. We're not idiots - we're going to try and have the best relationship with them that we can.
But if push comes to shove, and we are forced to choose between China and the United States at some point - there's absolutely no doubt we'll go with the US.
Is China trying to gain more influence and power here? Yes, it is. And that's of concern. But we're not blind to that threat and we are managing it in the best ways we can.
“Yes, it could be triggered if such a war started by an attack by China on American forces in the Pacific”
Bingo.
I disagree with you on calling it spin. I believe Downer meant what he said and was appeasing the Chinese communists and was backing away from the alliance specifically vis-a-vis Taiwan independence.
Downer was not a maverick in this in the foreign affairs community with many arguing against US support for Taiwan - the Taiwan was provoking it viewpoint.
He was being specifically asked if Australia was obliged to go to war under ANZUS if the US went to war against China because Taiwan was attacked.
That was the specific question he was asked.
And in that context, he said no, ANZUS would not apply.
He was entirely accurate in saying so - because that would be a war triggered not by an attack on the US anywhere, but by an attack on Taiwan.
“
He was being specifically asked if Australia was obliged to go to war under ANZUS if the US went to war against China because Taiwan was attacked.
That was the specific question he was asked.
And in that context, he said no, ANZUS would not apply.”
That’s word games.
That’s why I said it was weasely.
“He was entirely accurate in saying so - because that would be a war triggered not by an attack on the US anywhere, but by an attack on Taiwan.”
Exactly - playing games. As if the Chinese would not attack the US in the Pacific if the US joined Taiwan in defending an attack from China.
But I must reiterate my disagreement.
He meant even if the US is attacked in defense if Taiwan. That was his message to Taiwan and the US on behalf of the Chinese Communists.
No, it’s not word games.
It is what the Treaty says.
Exact words matter when it comes to treaties. They don’t mean whatever somebody decides they mean.
Yes, and at that point, ANZUS might be invoked - it would depend on the precise circumstances (it doesn't automatically apply if a war is ongoing - otherwise America would have been drawn into things like the Indonesian Confrontation, when Australian troops were attacked in places like Borneo).
It would depend on whether the attack was a widening of the war or part of an existing war.
Downer has acted as a Chinese Communist Agent for a long time.
He continued speaking out against Taiwan on China’s behalf after he left government.
He has even been on Huawei’s board.
He also was involved in the current Russia collusion hoax against Trump.
He’s not a good guy, wasn’t when he was in office.
the ChiComs view the Australia Outback as some sort of future Asiatic lebenstraum area
I doubt war would be confined to the Pacific; Iran would be enticed to heat things up with Russian help. The Russians could also exploit the situation in Europe and align more closely with Germany.
The Pentagon can’t fight a 2 front war and everyone knows it. It’s every man for himself don’t expect help from traditional allies.
I also think it’s naive to think that wars will be fought with big naval battle groups and armies at less at the onset. It’s more likely that we will see novel weapons and the use of proxy forces directed at civilians so that they there is plausible deniability.
These treaties were written in the 50s and 60s. The world and war are a lot different. Generals usually go to war with outdated strategy tactics and assumptions from the last war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.