Stuart Mackey
New Member
Australia lost lives defending Greece, not just Europe as a whole.
Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?
- Thread starter levathan
- Start date
I agree with you that europeans forget the sacrifice of the australians ( and other nationalities).
Maybe i have to explain a bit our mentality.
Luxembourg had the biggest loss in civil lifes during the World War II ( percentage). After the war our Grand-Duchesse has sworn that never again a luxembourgish life will be lost on foreign ground. We have a so small country that in nearly every family a member was killed during the war.So we don't accept any " senseless" loss. Senseless in the eyes of our community, senseless in the eyes of an very nationalistic people. Our people thinks that we have paid the price for all times. When an luxembourgish soldier was wounded in ex-Yugoslavia the papers, tv-news and radios were full with voices who ask to bring back our boys home.And he was only wounded, not killed!
For an australian mom, or an german or...or... it's a personal drama when his son is killed.Also for an luxemburgish mom.
But in the eyes of the politicians it's only a statistical value.
We have an army with 450 soldiers in total. 225 active and 125 reservists. So, if 1 of them is killed that makes nearly 0.5 percent of our active soldiers.
How many soldiers must be killed to reach 0.5 percent of the US or Australia forces?
That's why we are a bit too nationalistic. Every loss of life is an senseless drama. But the statistical weight changes from country to country.
For this reason most of our people agree that our soldiers have to defend our borders, half of them agree that our soldiers are part of a bigger plan called NATO. But i'm sure that nobody will accept the dead of an luxembourgish soldier in the far east while fighting against an enemy nearly unknown here.
Personally i know that we have to pay the price for our security. My, personally. But thats not the opinion of the whole population here.
For other small NATO countries it's the same.
Maybe you understand now a bit better what i would say with: " How to explain to a luxembourgish mom...."
I know that my english is not the best, far away from that. So please, if there is any misunderstood, ask me. I will try to explain.
Greets
Ray
Australians have been also killed during the battle of Britain, during the Operation Overlord in the Normandie ( France) and on convoys on all seas while bringing material to Europe.
Greets
Ray
How strange -- SEATO 2.0 and CENTO 2.0? Does Giuliani really want to revive the system of military alliances which was created in the 50s and, speaking frankly, didn't fare too well?
By the way, does the legal framework of these pacts still exist now, i.e. are the Treaties of Manila and Baghdad in force?
By the way, does the legal framework of these pacts still exist now, i.e. are the Treaties of Manila and Baghdad in force?
radiosilence
jints
I wouldn't take Rudy's speech seriously. It was meant for a targeted audience.
SEATO ended in 1977 and CENTO in 1979.
that is exactly one would think. however, here in muslim countries especially pakistan, many view the west with a lot of suspicion and think that an alliance including israel and others to commbat "terrorism" is just a covering for the real aim, i.e against islam.but but but... the extremists do not represent Islam as they so often proclaim, so how could an alliance formed to defeat terrorists be an alliance against Islam?
also, if they really want to defeat the damn terrorists why dont they form any pacts with muslim countries, most muslim nations would sign it. after all who knows the "muslim terrorists" better, muslims ofcourse, not the americans or europeans. this is the problem, we are not adressing the core of the problem, instead forming new alliances etc,
That's a problem to which you have already identified the cause. To join in a military alliance with the US would be near political suicide in countries with muslim majorities who see the alliance as anti-islamic. America had great problems securing bases in muslim countries even in the war against Afghanistan. Notice how some base locations were classified then? Better to keep the cooperation low profile so it is less visible to the public. So, no, most muslim countries would not have signed on willingly, even if it was actually in their best interests to do so.
What are you talking about? You seem to be forgeting the thousands of Australians who fought and died in RAF bomber command flying into the heart of Nazi Germany every night. Their sacrifice was a significant one in anybodies language. As well as all the other Australians who flew in other RAF commands.
I was referring to all wars anyway, Australias sacrifice in Turkey, France and Belguim during WW1 was substantial. For someone who spruiks about their fancy university education you are not very well informed.
Hooroo
Hi Ray,
I wasn't having a go at you. I understand and respect your point of view. It was a point more aimed at our British and French friends.
From an Australian perspective almost all our fighting and dying has been done on foreign shores so the experience of Australian mums asking why there son died in France, Belguim, North Africa, Crete, Singapore, New Guinea, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan is unfortunately all to real.
I subscribe to the point of view that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I want my children to enjoy the same freedoms that I have enjoyed and that our previous generations fought and died for. Looks like a nice day outside, I might take my little boy to the beach.
Cheers Mate
I wasn't having a go at you. I understand and respect your point of view. It was a point more aimed at our British and French friends.
From an Australian perspective almost all our fighting and dying has been done on foreign shores so the experience of Australian mums asking why there son died in France, Belguim, North Africa, Crete, Singapore, New Guinea, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan is unfortunately all to real.
I subscribe to the point of view that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I want my children to enjoy the same freedoms that I have enjoyed and that our previous generations fought and died for. Looks like a nice day outside, I might take my little boy to the beach.
Cheers Mate
"the price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
This, unfortunately, is the harsh truth. I wonder if many Singaporeans will be willing to see their sons fall on foreign lands, defending an ideal..
This, unfortunately, is the harsh truth. I wonder if many Singaporeans will be willing to see their sons fall on foreign lands, defending an ideal..
exactly, it is truly un-Islamic to form an alliance with non-muslim countries instead of allying with a muslim nation.
pakistan did, but it's another thing that behind the scenes the ISI supports "some" of the taliban.
not only greece, but vietnam too, i read in a history book that even the aussies sent some troops to fight the viet-cong with the americans, in retrospect, it was a waste of money, time and resources, on a cuase that was not availed.
Just to clarify, the agreement was signed today 27th Sept.
-------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIA will sign a treaty with NATO in a move that will boost security and intelligence ties and assist the evolution of the 60-year-old Cold War alliance of democracies into a global force.
The treaty is due to be signed in New York next week by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Australia is officially a NATO "contact country", but the expression does not cover the depth of the relationship, which has strengthened considerably since Diggers deployed in Afghanistan began operating under NATO command two years ago.
A spokesman for Mr Downer said yesterday the treaty would give Australia access to NATO security assessments, including those on international terrorism, and to operational matters affecting Australian Defence Force personnel.
He said the document would go before parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for final ratification.
The treaty breakthrough comes a week after Defence Minister Brendan Nelson criticised the NATO countries for failing to carry their share of the military burden in Afghanistan. Dr Nelson said NATO's deployment of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan was unacceptable, given that it had more than two million troops under its command.
In New York, UN ambassador Robert Hill, a former defence minister in the Howard Government, said closer ties with NATO were clearly in Australia's best interests.
"As NATO has looked to operations outside its original geographic area of responsibility -- particularly as it has sought to play a part in addressing global challenges such as the terrorist threat -- we have a vested interest in getting closer to NATO," Mr Hill said.
"We have shared values -- they obviously have an established and ongoing military capability, and for the first time we have gone into an operation under NATO leadership.
"In conjunction with that, we have sought to build the mechanisms to enable adequate sharing of intelligence and interactive ability in operations."
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created in post-war Western Europe to guard against the threat of Soviet expansion. But since the collapse of communism, NATO has extended its geographic reach and the range of its operations.
In recent years, NATO has fought the Taliban in Afghanistan, been involved in training security forces in Iraq, providing logistical support to the African Union mission in Darfur, and assisting in tsunami, hurricane and earthquake relief operations in Indonesia, New Orleans and Pakistan respectively.
Mr Downer said last October Australia would develop interoperability with NATO forces. This was to include the sharing of classified information and training in how to respond to a "dirty bomb" attack.
But Mr Downer rejected the idea that Australia should become a full member of NATO, saying that geography and Australia's significant regional commitments meant it could be difficult to service a formal membership arrangement with the military alliance. That position had not changed, the minister's spokesman said.
Mr Hill said yesterday it was uncertain how the Australian-NATO relationship would evolve in the future.
"There hasn't been a suggestion from either side that Australia should join as a full member," he said.
"But both sides see an interest in Australia working more closely with NATO and participating in certain operations with NATO, as we are in Afghanistan."
-------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIA will sign a treaty with NATO in a move that will boost security and intelligence ties and assist the evolution of the 60-year-old Cold War alliance of democracies into a global force.
The treaty is due to be signed in New York next week by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Australia is officially a NATO "contact country", but the expression does not cover the depth of the relationship, which has strengthened considerably since Diggers deployed in Afghanistan began operating under NATO command two years ago.
A spokesman for Mr Downer said yesterday the treaty would give Australia access to NATO security assessments, including those on international terrorism, and to operational matters affecting Australian Defence Force personnel.
He said the document would go before parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for final ratification.
The treaty breakthrough comes a week after Defence Minister Brendan Nelson criticised the NATO countries for failing to carry their share of the military burden in Afghanistan. Dr Nelson said NATO's deployment of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan was unacceptable, given that it had more than two million troops under its command.
In New York, UN ambassador Robert Hill, a former defence minister in the Howard Government, said closer ties with NATO were clearly in Australia's best interests.
"As NATO has looked to operations outside its original geographic area of responsibility -- particularly as it has sought to play a part in addressing global challenges such as the terrorist threat -- we have a vested interest in getting closer to NATO," Mr Hill said.
"We have shared values -- they obviously have an established and ongoing military capability, and for the first time we have gone into an operation under NATO leadership.
"In conjunction with that, we have sought to build the mechanisms to enable adequate sharing of intelligence and interactive ability in operations."
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created in post-war Western Europe to guard against the threat of Soviet expansion. But since the collapse of communism, NATO has extended its geographic reach and the range of its operations.
In recent years, NATO has fought the Taliban in Afghanistan, been involved in training security forces in Iraq, providing logistical support to the African Union mission in Darfur, and assisting in tsunami, hurricane and earthquake relief operations in Indonesia, New Orleans and Pakistan respectively.
Mr Downer said last October Australia would develop interoperability with NATO forces. This was to include the sharing of classified information and training in how to respond to a "dirty bomb" attack.
But Mr Downer rejected the idea that Australia should become a full member of NATO, saying that geography and Australia's significant regional commitments meant it could be difficult to service a formal membership arrangement with the military alliance. That position had not changed, the minister's spokesman said.
Mr Hill said yesterday it was uncertain how the Australian-NATO relationship would evolve in the future.
"There hasn't been a suggestion from either side that Australia should join as a full member," he said.
"But both sides see an interest in Australia working more closely with NATO and participating in certain operations with NATO, as we are in Afghanistan."
Before anyone else decides to add their comments about australians losing their lives in foreign lands, can they at least make the effort to do some research before making further comment.
There are some remarkably shallow comments being made which, to be quite frank, are insulting as they smack of "me too" commentary rather than a considered response.
There are some remarkably shallow comments being made which, to be quite frank, are insulting as they smack of "me too" commentary rather than a considered response.
Yes, Musharaf was smart enough to see that jumping camp and following America was in Pakistan's best interest. But that act was certainly not in his best interest, as current events show, because the majority of Pakistan just do not understand and do not like Pakistan's cooperation with America. Which illustrates why Muslim countries for the most part do not like to support America overtly, and why an overt alliance with America is not likely.
Gents, I thought this was about joining NATO, not a venue for grandstanding individual country’s contributions to previous conflicts!
Joining NATO as a full-time or associated member brings huge benefits at both the strategic and tactical level. It will allow staff officers from each new nation to be posted to different command HQ’s (ARRC for example) for extended periods allowing for participants to see how different nations and their respective capabilities are integrated into the chain of command and used in time of conflict. This is where the likes of Singapore, Australia and Japan will benefit – learn how to integrate and ensure their command structure and communications dovetails that of NATO.
Japan, who I see as the most important potential member, has a large navy, but with restricted RAS capabilities. By coming under NATO command it brings 'teeth' to the equation, which can be supported logistically by other NATO countries. Japan also has a large man-power pool, which can be recruited, trained and deployed in times of drawn out crisis. Realistically Japan represents the most capable (number of hulls, training etc.) force (apart from the US) in ASEAN capable of taking on China at sea.
Joining NATO as a full-time or associated member brings huge benefits at both the strategic and tactical level. It will allow staff officers from each new nation to be posted to different command HQ’s (ARRC for example) for extended periods allowing for participants to see how different nations and their respective capabilities are integrated into the chain of command and used in time of conflict. This is where the likes of Singapore, Australia and Japan will benefit – learn how to integrate and ensure their command structure and communications dovetails that of NATO.
Japan, who I see as the most important potential member, has a large navy, but with restricted RAS capabilities. By coming under NATO command it brings 'teeth' to the equation, which can be supported logistically by other NATO countries. Japan also has a large man-power pool, which can be recruited, trained and deployed in times of drawn out crisis. Realistically Japan represents the most capable (number of hulls, training etc.) force (apart from the US) in ASEAN capable of taking on China at sea.
A good example of Australian troops working alongside NATO (in this case the Dutch) came out of Afghanistan today.
The Australian Reconstruction Taskforce which is assigned to the NATO force has been working alongside the Dutch for some time and relies on them for close air support from F-16's and Apaches together with fire support from Pzh2000's.
Tas
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7118
The Australian Reconstruction Taskforce which is assigned to the NATO force has been working alongside the Dutch for some time and relies on them for close air support from F-16's and Apaches together with fire support from Pzh2000's.
Tas
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #37
Hi Aimans, no offence, I'm just curious about how forming an alliance with non-muslim countries is un-Islamic? And is that the general feeling on the ground in the middle east. Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stuart Mackey
New Member
That should have read better and it was not my intention to suggest Australians did not serve in other theaters in Europe, sorry if I wasn't clear, late night.
I think the current security arrangements are sufficient.
I think NATO`s command structure is rooted in America and Europe. How on earth will they coordinate the security of countries as far apart as Israel and Singapore ? It would require separate commands and logistical issues would be massive.
Besides, i have always thought that current security arragements (bilateral or otherwise) are sufficient. I mean it does not have to be overtly called an alliance. These countries know what are at stake. If China is to become so unbearable, you will naturally see overt alliances form up.
I think NATO`s command structure is rooted in America and Europe. How on earth will they coordinate the security of countries as far apart as Israel and Singapore ? It would require separate commands and logistical issues would be massive.
Besides, i have always thought that current security arragements (bilateral or otherwise) are sufficient. I mean it does not have to be overtly called an alliance. These countries know what are at stake. If China is to become so unbearable, you will naturally see overt alliances form up.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Australia and New Zealand for EU membership
I would actually argue that Australia and New Zealand have excellent claims to EU membership based on their cultural and historical ties. The fact that they are not in continental Europe is not particularly problematic because geography does not necessarily define who is European.
Israel and Singapore have very close coordination in terms of defence security and particularly defence capability development since the 1960s.
I would actually argue that Australia and New Zealand have excellent claims to EU membership based on their cultural and historical ties. The fact that they are not in continental Europe is not particularly problematic because geography does not necessarily define who is European.