Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reacts during a media conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, August 18, 2017. AAP/Mick Tsikas/via Reuters
While Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull assures his American ally the two sides are "attached at the hip", a war-wary public hopes for a smaller role than in previous US-led conflicts
As the United States endeavors to build a coalition of the willing against North Korea, what role would long-time ally Australia play in a potential conflict?
Australia has joined for the first time the Ulchi Freedom Guardian joint military exercises underway now between the United States and South Korea to defend the latter from a North Korea attack.
The exercises, scheduled to run from August 21-31, are the world’s biggest computerized command and control drill, with over 50,000 South Korean and 17,000 American soldiers participating.
Australia’s inclusion comes as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull offers his support in any potential war with North Korea. While North Korea’s mouthpiece media said Australia’s participation in the exercise was “suicidal”, Canberra’s role in any real conflict would likely be minimal.
Read more ....
WNU editor: Australia is not the only country sending mixed signals on a possible North Korean war .... German Chancellor Angela Merkel: Germany Will Not Automatically Side With The U.S. In A War With North Korea.
10 comments:
It's all coming out now. All the theatrics, lip service, and glad handing is almost over. If anyone thinks that these countries would have acted any differently with a different US administration when things got serious, they would have gotten a surprise.
Germany did not side with the U.S. during the Vietnam War.
So this would not be news.
The Germans were furious, when the U.S. mined Haiphong harbor.
It seems as though the French, Germans and Russians had ships trapped in the harbor.
The Russians were cool. They were winning and they could wait.
The mercenary (Is avaricious the right word?) French and Germans hollered.
The opposition here is criticizing Prime minister Turnbull for committing us to war with north Korea.
However unlike Germany there is nothing mixed about Australia's signal.
We are committed, the opposition is just that, the opposition.
fazman,
I noticed. My comments were directed to NATO, Europe in general, and the many countries in between. For over a century the US has done what many other great powers have done, assembled, directed, and paid for alliances to further it's strategic goals. This is historically a successful way of going about things, but as in all things it can come to a point of being counter productive. A case in point (as WNU has had to listen to me many times) NATO and Europe. They are and have been in essence social clubs for decades. More interested in what they could get than contribute in any relationship with the US. This may be over, whether or not it's to the good only time will tell. As for Australia I cannot include it any of the above criticism. When times were tough they were there period. I will tell you this fazman, if China has it's way in it's naval plans Australia will really need the US and I hope we are as constant friends to you as Australia has been to us.
Well said, my thoughts exactly.
Guys you seem to ignore that the war with Vietnam was unjustified, unsuccessful, indirectly lead to the impeachment (combined with watergate) of nixon and millions of dead Vietnamese. I'm in Vietnam right now and there's still people suffering mutations from that nerve agent orange here, so please be more educated when you talk about automatic alliances in war. and I can tell you it's a good thing France and Germany stayed out of it. And why would they not? It was a war of choice by america and a wrong war as such. Even Kissinger knew he misunderstood @ domino theory. Don't you guys learn anything? All this complaining about not "siding with the US" automatically. The keyword is automatically. In the case that the US gets attacked of course these countries would help automatically, as per contractual agreement. But that's not the case if the US decides to attack any country first without consulting its partners. That's just normal. Are you guys high or something? :)
Well written and sincerely spoken, ditto.
Anon,
I do not need any education from you about Viet Nam. As for France and Indo China I would think that it is you that needs education. As far as something being unjustified, and unsuccessful that is your opinion not shared by everyone. As for as "complaining" it's seems it is you who complains about posts. The war can be debated even by people who are high, being there now does not make you an automatic expert or the type of moral titan that you seem to fancy yourself. As to the residue of war (ie Agent Orange) to this day French farmers are killed yearly by unexploded ordinance from WWI, where is your precious morality on that subject?
If you are in a pact then a pact becomes worse than.useless if you pick and choose your engagement scenarios.
Australia was clear that it would become involved IF North Korea initiated hostilities,that is the key to justification.
Anon,
China has 4 times the population than the U.S., but the U.S. has a higher incarceration rate?
nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Prisoners/Per-capita
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Does that make the U.S., worser than China? (Yeah, I misspelled worse of emphasis)
You average ANIFA babe or other Democrat would say "Yes!". This not on the Left would say "No.".
Maybe China does not have a high incarceration rate, because (a) they execute more people and (b) do so quickly that it I has a deterrent effect.
Here is the point. You can take 1 summary statistic and misrepresent it.
So we can move on to the 21954 and 1955 period and the partition and the plebiscite.
Two items I would like to point out.
1) In 1954 people voted with their feet. Anti-communists moved south and communists moved north. Except the communists cheated. SHOCKER! Not all communist moved north. Some stayed behind incognito to propagandize & cause trouble.
2) South Vietnam had a more polyglot society. It had factions contending for power such as the Cao Đài, Hòa Hảo and the Bình Xuyên organised crime syndicate.
North Vietnam squelched any opposition quickly and out if sight of the media. Any Leftists will ignore this even if they find out. That is not to say Diem was perfect, far from it. I would say that North Vietnam was far less perfect than Diem. Any opposition before, during or after any vote was dealt with via a re-education camp or a bullet. There is little wonder why the communist party got so many votes up north.
Here is an example of the North building a harmonious society.
"China supported the ethnic minority United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races against Vietnam during the FULRO insurgency against Vietnam.
The Vietnamese executed any members of its ethnic minorities along the border with China who worked for the Chinese"
So a visitor can visit today and see not much dissent. If the communist had not killed so many intellectuals, religious people and minorities, how many minorities would there be today? Would it be a high percentage? How harmonious would the Vietnam be today? Would the communist be in power if they had not changed the electorate so much with re-education camps and bullets?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War#Ethnic_minorities
One more thing. the war would have been over much sooner with 2 independent countries, If China and Russia had not provided so much support.
This is what their did after the War with south Vietnam. This was not a new development. They killed people left right and center. Are you good with that?
China provided huge support to Vietnam and the turned around and attacked them 4 years after the war ended.
"identified seven major PLA units in North Vietnam to include the 67th AAA Division, and an estimated 25,000 to 45,000 Chinese combat troops total"
militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/chinesesupport.aspx
I know this is true and I do not need to read the CIA report. I just have to ask my 'significant other.'
Post a Comment