SGP a strong ally of USA - Leader not considered World Class
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
It is simply too early for Obama to be "hard nosed" in his selective approach in responding to the deluge of congratulatory messages.
If you feel that China and Russia is more weighty than Singapore, can Austalia or South Korea be heavier in weight than China and Russia to warrant the call made ?
Clearly, the calls made by Obama were to countries that he see a common thread with his political principles of democratic practices, of hope and positive change for their respective citizens.
Governments that are realistic in their assumptions of their roles in public service instead of self-aggrandizement through inflated self-valuation must surely have gained Obama's respect.
For his character displayed in listening to the smallest and weakest person, remembering the elderly 103 year old who lived to see this day, the humility displayed in winning this momentous election - he will surely have called Singapore if only we had the shine in our politics that would have been befitting the aura in LKY's claim as the leader of a miracle country belonging to the First World.
I believe there are many other countries that have the excellent democracy in place that you crave for. Countries like the Denmark, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand. So why are they not on the list?
For South Korea, read what i have posted in my initial post. For Australia, they're one of the countries whose policies generally dovetail with the US and it's a good ally to contain Chinese influence in the region. While the US probably doesn't want to go to war against China, it doesn't mean that they agree with Chinese influence throughout the region.
It's just politics and foreign policy. Do you think so highly of Singapore's position in the world that you think Obama actually cares whether we have a democratic government, a socialist government or a dictator in place?
-
Originally posted by pigsticker:
I believe there are many other countries that have the excellent democracy in place that you crave for. Countries like the Denmark, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand. So why are they not on the list?
For South Korea, read what i have posted in my initial post. For Australia, they're one of the countries whose policies generally dovetail with the US and it's a good ally to contain Chinese influence in the region. While the US probably doesn't want to go to war against China, it doesn't mean that they agree with Chinese influence throughout the region.
It's just politics and foreign policy. Do you think so highly of Singapore's position in the world that you think Obama actually cares whether we have a democratic government, a socialist government or a dictator in place?
From what you have posted, it will reveal that you will need to do more research into the historical relationships of Denmark, Sweden, Spain and New Zealand with the USA.
These countries that you have named may have the highest standards of democracy that have brought them to First World Status for their citizens - not their political leaders only - but does that necessarily result in the best of political relations with the USA ?
Denmark and Sweden have never supported the US military adventures - from Vietnam to Afghanistan; the new Spanish Government almost immediately withdrew all Spanish support in the US led Iraq war; while Helen Clark's government pulled NZ out of the Defense arrangement with the USA and ban all US ships from NZ port if they do not declare their nuclear weapons.
US military force in South Korea and Japan is not to contain China, but more as a safety measure to respond to an unpredicatable North Korean leadership that started the war in the Korean Peninsular in the 1950s.
I am not sure how you manage to conclude that I should "think of Singapore's position in the World as being highly placed"; perhaps you should seek some help in reading and understanding the "Heading of this thread", and what has been posted todate.
If you think that Obama is not as knowledgeable or unconcern with the events in our part of the World, you may yet live to re-assess your position during his term in office.
One thing seems to be a certainty, Obama knows where he can get the most reliable and unadulterated help from - and for now, it does not seem to have included any advise from despots - who believe in the pseudo-science of eugenics.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
"Formal Ties" or "Formal Alliances" - replace it in the questions asked.What has been posted remains unchanged.
In 1998, Singapore has a FORMAL Agreement with the USA that allowed the US Navy to dock at the Changi Naval Base and take on resupply.
Without having a "formal alliance" in the status that you claim, would Singapore have been given access to all the training facilities used by the USAF ?
Is Singapore's participation in supporting US presence in Iraq not considered a "Strategic Alliance" in the interest of Singapore ?
What possibly could your argument be about ?
Yes, it is due to the sensitivity of any "Formal Alliance" between Singapore and the USA that prevent one from being made.
It does not prevent the activities from occurring between two countries who have chosen each to be allies without any need to formalise it.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, you can write an email to MFA if you want on the status of any Singapore-US "Alliance." See what is the reply you get.
We can have some kinda training or military cooperation agreements, but that does not constitute "Alliance" and explicitly state us to be a US "Ally." If we are "Allies" through "agreements" then I think we'd have allied ourselves with Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan, India, and China even.
And I don't blame you for misunderstanding, the US Press under Bush likes to throw the word, "Allies" around just to make the US sound popular around the world to its citizens. The United States is not bound by written agreement to aid Singapore.
Looks like I have to "Educate" you on some parts of Singapore's foreign Policy.
Firstly, lets look at what the US State Dept says about SG.
In 1990, the United States and Singapore signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which allows United States access to Singapore facilities at Paya Lebar Airbase and the Sembawang wharves. Under the MOU, a U.S. Navy logistics unit was established in Singapore in 1992; U.S. fighter aircraft deploy periodically to Singapore for exercises, and a number of U.S. military vessels visit Singapore. The MOU was amended in 1999 to permit U.S. naval vessels to berth at the Changi Naval Base, which was completed in early 2001. In July 2005, the United States and Singapore signed a Strategic Framework Agreement to expand cooperation in defense and security.
What is a Memorandum of Understanding? Please do your own homework by following the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding
Let's see what ELSE does the US State Dept say about Singapore...Singapore is nonaligned. It is a member of the United Nations and several of its specialized and related agencies, and also of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Commonwealth.
Again, please do your homework by following the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
After reading up on all this. Can you tell me which part of MOU, and Non-Aligned movement can possibly spell a foreign policy of US-Singapore Alliance?
Atobe, you're a pretty enthusiastic user on sgforums, and its really fun to see some of your views sometimes, but please do your research about such "inferences" that may not necessarily be true. Especially so when people have TOLD you, you are wrong.
We exist in a sensitive region where it is better for us to pursue multi-lateral relations than to bank on the help of one "Ally." Even if we do have some relations with particular "superpowers", we need to maintain a form of "deniability" by not officially stating that we are aligned with any one power.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, you can write an email to MFA if you want on the status of any Singapore-US "Alliance." See what is the reply you get.
We can have some kinda training or military cooperation agreements, but that does not constitute "Alliance" and explicitly state us to be a US "Ally." If we are "Allies" through "agreements" then I think we'd have allied ourselves with Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan, India, and China even.
And I don't blame you for misunderstanding, the US Press under Bush likes to throw the word, "Allies" around just to make the US sound popular around the world to its citizens. The United States is not bound by written agreement to aid Singapore.
If you have no idea what I am "talking" about - do you know what you are heading into, or are you taking on a presumptious position for yourself that may simply be too much to swallow or even digest ?
You seem to be trapped in semantics in determining if Singapore is an ally of the US - with or without any Formal Alliance.
Have you forgotten what you had posted on Pg 4 15 Nov 2008 - "We are just a regional partner, an FTA partner. Though we have several defence cooperations, Singapore chose not to call these cooperations an "Alliance" due to regional sensitivities. Understand?"
Can you even understand what you have written in the paragraph extracted about the necessity of hiding "these cooperations" and not calling it an "Alliance" ?
Not having any Formal Agreement, or Formal Alliance, or Formal Ties - does not necessarily mean Singapore is not an ally to the USA.
Was it the press that inaccurately hype the word "ally" in describing the US-SG ties ?
In a publication in 1999, Defense Secretary William Cohen said he counts Singapore among the United States' strongest allies in Southeast Asia and looks forward to even stronger relations in the next millennium
Even the “Human Rights Watch” sees Singapore as an Ally of the USA with the Bush Administration dragging its feet in pressuring the Singapore Government to relent on its Human Rights abuse towards its Citizens.
Looks like I have to "Educate" you on some parts of Singapore's foreign Policy.
Firstly, lets look at what the US State Dept says about SG.
In 1990, the United States and Singapore signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which allows United States access to Singapore facilities at Paya Lebar Airbase and the Sembawang wharves. Under the MOU, a U.S. Navy logistics unit was established in Singapore in 1992; U.S. fighter aircraft deploy periodically to Singapore for exercises, and a number of U.S. military vessels visit Singapore. The MOU was amended in 1999 to permit U.S. naval vessels to berth at the Changi Naval Base, which was completed in early 2001. In July 2005, the United States and Singapore signed a Strategic Framework Agreement to expand cooperation in defense and security.
What is a Memorandum of Understanding? Please do your own homework by following the link below.
Did you read the explanation and educate yourself to the meaning of what was written, or did you simply "cut and paste" and let the words do the job for you ?
The following is a paragraph extracted from your 'wiki' reference site:
A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforcement agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
Now it seems that 'wiki' describe the MOU between the US and SG Government as a "more formal alternative" - which means that what you had written on Pg 4 is no longer valid, that the SG Govenment need to hide from being an US Ally.
This pretty much confirms what I had posted in my reply to you on Pg 4, that - "In 1998, Singapore has a FORMAL Agreement with the USA that allowed the US Navy to dock at the Changi Naval Base and take on resupply".
Wiki also explain that the MOU "expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action" - if SG and USA do not see things with the same vision and have any convergence of will on isssues of economics and security, will such an MOU exist - in place of more Formal Alliance that may brush the bristles of our ASEAN neighbors ?
Put it this way, the MOU is a 'half-way' to a more Formal Alliance - by itself, it already formalise the Formal Ties, and at the same time meets with the requirement of the SG Government not to brush our neighbors on the wrong side.
How do you wish to re-interprete what your 'wiki' site has printed that will favor your position and educate me further ?
Let's see what ELSE does the US State Dept say about Singapore...Singapore is nonaligned. It is a member of the United Nations and several of its specialized and related agencies, and also of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Commonwealth.
Again, please do your homework by following the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
After reading up on all this. Can you tell me which part of MOU, and Non-Aligned movement can possibly spell a foreign policy of US-Singapore Alliance?
Have you read the contents of your referenced wiki site concerning the Non-Aligned Movement, or is this another 'cut-and-paste' job ?
Is Singapore a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, or is it like all that the LKY Administration has said and done with supposed cold pragmatism - towards Singaporeans, as well as towards the international community ?
Say one thing, and doing another.
The opening paragraph of your wiki site had stated - "The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is an international organization of states considering themselves not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc".
If Singapore is truly a member of the Non-Aligned Movement - would it have invited the US Military to have free access to its deep water Naval Base, and re-supply services of the SAF air bases ?
Is it not very unusual for a member of the Non-Aligned Movement to send a aerial refuelling tanker, and an armed LST in support of the US led Iraq War that is strongly opposed by all other members of the Non-Aligned Movement ?
Has Singapore not contravened the very principle of non-alignment by such close association with the USA, and in support of its military services and military adventures ?
Can you appreciate the significance or gravity of the actions that the Singapore Government has taken in its deliberate actions in support of the US policies ?
Atobe, you're a pretty enthusiastic user on sgforums, and its really fun to see some of your views sometimes, but please do your research about such "inferences" that may not necessarily be true. Especially so when people have TOLD you, you are wrong.
We exist in a sensitive region where it is better for us to pursue multi-lateral relations than to bank on the help of one "Ally." Even if we do have some relations with particular "superpowers", we need to maintain a form of "deniability" by not officially stating that we are aligned with any one power.
It is interesting to note that my post in sgforums had your attention, and that you are amused by some of my views.
"Inferences" are a matter of opinions, as much as how details and facts are interpreted, or re-interpreted - and I accept all reasonable and reasonably presented arguments.
I am not sure who are "those people who have TOLD me that I am wrong, as what had been written by them were also given my counter challenge with logic and substantiated arguments that their valued positions are mistaken.
Unfortunately, while Singapore is pursuing multi-relations with different countries, the Singapore Political Leaders are banking on the US to come to our aid, as the US did when Kuwait was taken over by Sadam Hussein - even when there is no Formal Alliance between the US and Kuwait.
-
Continuing from the above, you may wish to peruse the following views from Academia - of which the essential part is extracted.
First, Singapore is only small geographically. Typically, the US bases its foreign policy on ECONOMIC size, not on GEOGRAPPHIC size or POPULATION size.
If we based it on geography, we'd care a lot more about Brazil; if we based it on population we'd care a lot more about India.
We base foreign policy on economic size because that's what matters to the US -- how much we can trade with them, etc.
Singapore is certainly not one of the world's larger economies, but it's a lot bigger economically than it is geographically (a 20-mile island) or by population (just 4 million people). But it's in the same category as Denmark or Israel, economically, which is well above most African, Asian, or Latin American countries. Some nice figures to substantiate that are at http://www.odci.gov/cia/di/products/hies/hies.pdf -- Singapore makes it (barely) into the "select list" of countries.
Second, Singapore DOES have "most favored nation" status. MFN is an oddly-named status; it just means that the country gets the same status as the most-favored nation, which is the same thing as saying, open trade. Because it's so hard to state it that way, the new term is "NTR", for "Normal Trading Relations."
Singapore has NTR (and MFN) status with the US. We have no import restrictions, and no special tariffs, for Singapore.
In the world of international trade, "normal" means "most favored."
Third, it's true that Singapore has a one-party government. But they are by no means a strong-man dictatorship -- they're a democracy.
The US would NEVER put sanctions against a government like Singapore's -- their leaders are elected democratically.
It's a non-Western authoritarian form of democracy, like Japan and South Korea have, but it IS a democracy. Their one-party state COULD be voted out of power, as Japan's was. I predict that will happen in about 10 years in Singapore -- see http://webmerchants.com/spectrum/bubble.htm#4 for details.
Finally, the US does have some defense relationship with Singapore. It's true that we have no formal defense relationship (which would be through SEATO, the US's Pacific equivalent of NATO). But Singapore is a member of ASEAN (the economic Association of South East Asian Nations), which the US is associated with through its membership in the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum, which has some security aspects to it).
It's unlikely that the US would feel obligated by treaty to come to the military assistance of Singapore, but it's also unlikely that anyone would invade.
But we were not obligated by treaty to come to the military assistance of Kuwait or Kosovo either, and we did -- I suspect we would do the same for Singapore.
We DO use Singapore as a port of call for US Navy ships (I've seen them in the harbor), and when the US bases in the Philippines were closing, Singapore considered opening a new US base there (I think it was rejected because the island is just too small). Overall, 's answers are correct, but miss the spirit -- Singapore is an ally, as far as the US is concerned, for the basic reason that they are a developed capitalist democracy.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
From what you have posted, it will reveal that you will need to do more research into the historical relationships of Denmark, Sweden, Spain and New Zealand with the USA.
These countries that you have named may have the highest standards of democracy that have brought them to First World Status for their citizens - not their political leaders only - but does that necessarily result in the best of political relations with the USA ?
Denmark and Sweden have never supported the US military adventures - from Vietnam to Afghanistan; the new Spanish Government almost immediately withdrew all Spanish support in the US led Iraq war; while Helen Clark's government pulled NZ out of the Defense arrangement with the USA and ban all US ships from NZ port if they do not declare their nuclear weapons.
US military force in South Korea and Japan is not to contain China, but more as a safety measure to respond to an unpredicatable North Korean leadership that started the war in the Korean Peninsular in the 1950s.
I am not sure how you manage to conclude that I should "think of Singapore's position in the World as being highly placed"; perhaps you should seek some help in reading and understanding the "Heading of this thread", and what has been posted todate.
If you think that Obama is not as knowledgeable or unconcern with the events in our part of the World, you may yet live to re-assess your position during his term in office.
One thing seems to be a certainty, Obama knows where he can get the most reliable and unadulterated help from - and for now, it does not seem to have included any advise from despots - who believe in the pseudo-science of eugenics.
Must i spell out everything. South Korea, as stated in my initial post and which i stated to refer to in my second post, was to provide a base for US troops to react immediately to any North Korean activities. Nothing was said in my initial post that US troops are stationed in South Korea and Japan to contain the Chinese. The containment of China portion is attributed to Australia if you had read carefully.
My point about Obama not including those countries is a response to your allegation that Obama didn't include Singapore because of our lack of democracy or despotism as you term it. As your response shows, not including these countries is entirely due to them not having close relations to the US and not due to them having a lack of democracy.
Everything i have posted can be easily explained or supported by the state of current affairs . But your point about Obama not including Singapore due to despotism, maybe you could cite some examples whereby Obama is concerned about our despotism to prove your point? (Bold here so that you could focus your reply on providing some concrete examples. Thanks)
And yes, Obama might be aware of events in our region, but would Obama prioritise despotism in Singapore over the war in Iraq and the state of the global economy? Over the state of Kim Jong Il's health and North Korea? Over the nuclear situation in Iran? Over the rise of Russia and China as powers that could rival or at least threaten the US?
I would really be happy if Obama did take an interest in Singapore politics, it would mean that he would have solved so many of the world's problem that he has the time to intervene in such an unimportant affairs. I sincerely hope that what you have attributed to Obama is true, that he is concerned about despotism in Singapore rather than because Singapore is just not worth mentioning.
-
Originally posted by pigsticker:
Must i spell out everything. South Korea, as stated in my initial post and which i stated to refer to in my second post, was to provide a base for US troops to react immediately to any North Korean activities. Nothing was said in my initial post that US troops are stationed in South Korea and Japan to contain the Chinese. The containment of China portion is attributed to Australia if you had read carefully.
If you must print a wall of text, it is good if you learn to use paragraphing to highlight the difference in emphasis so as to avoid "mis-reading".
With South Korea being mentioned in the same paragraph written about Australia, as in your reply at the top of Pg 3, it could be interpreted wrongly when read too quickly.
Anyway, the statement made about the troops in Japan and Korea had parallelled yours, and the same troops are seen by the Chinese as American efforts to contain them militarily even if it is not openly stated.
My point about Obama not including those countries is a response to your allegation that Obama didn't include Singapore because of our lack of democracy or despotism as you term it. As your response shows, not including these countries is entirely due to them not having close relations to the US and not due to them having a lack of democracy.
Actually it is both about "not being democratic" and "not being close" - depending on which countries you are referring to.
Everything i have posted can be easily explained or supported by the state of current affairs . But your point about Obama not including Singapore due to despotism, maybe you could cite some examples whereby Obama is concerned about our despotism to prove your point? (Bold here so that you could focus your reply on providing some concrete examples. Thanks)
Did you read about Obama's attitude about changing the Bush Administration policy in not talking to despots, and of his desires to engage these despots without pre-conditions ?
Human Rights Watch has even documented that the US Congress views of Singapore Human Rights Abuses differ from the Administration - and it is not surprising that Obama's term in the US Senate does not expose him to Singapore's situation.
And yes, Obama might be aware of events in our region, but would Obama prioritise despotism in Singapore over the war in Iraq and the state of the global economy? Over the state of Kim Jong Il's health and North Korea? Over the nuclear situation in Iran? Over the rise of Russia and China as powers that could rival or at least threaten the US?
I would really be happy if Obama did take an interest in Singapore politics, it would mean that he would have solved so many of the world's problem that he has the time to intervene in such an unimportant affairs. I sincerely hope that what you have attributed to Obama is true, that he is concerned about despotism in Singapore rather than because Singapore is just not worth mentioning.
Is LKY's Administration in the same World Class league of despots as Iran and North Korea even as he had unashamedly claim to have brought Singapore into the First World of Nations?
Clearly, he intended the First World of Economically Advance Nations, without the criteria of political freedom for the citizens.
If LKY is not even a World Class despot, he will have to wait in line for Obama to reach him, as he and his Government is not considered as World Class even amongst the rogue nations.
Obama is concerned about dealing with despots, not necessarily in Singapore alone.
-
I think I've proven my point and said my piece.
Our relations with the United States is not one of formal alliance by any form of treaty. An MOU, is a non-legal binding document. If you choose not to understand that, that is your problem.
As a non-aligned member, Singapore still contributes as it plays a part in the UN Sanctioned activities.
Hence my argument is this:
Because Singapore is not an official Ally of the United States, Obama who is not yet the President, has no reason to include Singapore into a series of calls that were publicly acknowledged to be for privileged and official allies.
I have made and proven my point with the US State Department's official stand on Singapore, as well as interpretations of MoUs and Non-aligned movements.
Your argument of Obama not wanting to deal with "despots" is however, unproven.
What you wish to make of the little molehill is your business, amateur.
Shotgun out.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If you must print a wall of text, it is good if you learn to use paragraphing to highlight the difference in emphasis so as to avoid "mis-reading".
With South Korea being mentioned in the same paragraph written about Australia, as in your reply at the top of Pg 3, it could be interpreted wrongly when read too quickly.
Wall of text?? that's cute coming from you. I've scanned through my posts and the most i have in one paragraph is only 4 lines max, which is about the same as yours.
While I like to continue the debate, seeing your reply telling me to learn to use paragraphing when my posts have the same paragraph structure as yours smacks of hypocrisy.
I don't see the need to continue talking to someone who tries to blame others when he/she made the error.
Have a good day.
-
Tis is ridiculous. How can u give blind conclusions based on the fact tat he never call singapore when he only do it for 9 out of thousands of nations. Do u think singapore is so outstanding and much bigger than real life tat Obama must personally call them ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Tis is ridiculous. How can u give blind conclusions based on the fact tat he never call singapore when he only do it for 9 out of thousands of nations. Do u think singapore is so outstanding and much bigger than real life tat Obama must personally call them ?
correction, us recognize only 194 countries in the world.but largely i agree that this is storm in a teacup.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I think I've proven my point and said my piece.
Our relations with the United States is not one of formal alliance by any form of treaty. An MOU, is a non-legal binding document. If you choose not to understand that, that is your problem.
As a non-aligned member, Singapore still contributes as it plays a part in the UN Sanctioned activities.
Hence my argument is this:
Because Singapore is not an official Ally of the United States, Obama who is not yet the President, has no reason to include Singapore into a series of calls that were publicly acknowledged to be for privileged and official allies.
I have made and proven my point with the US State Department's official stand on Singapore, as well as interpretations of MoUs and Non-aligned movements.
Your argument of Obama not wanting to deal with "despots" is however, unproven.
What you wish to make of the little molehill is your business, amateur.
Shotgun out.
How pathetically potent can a Shotgun be ?
After being exposed for the ignorance in the quoted reference pieces for M.O.U and Non-Alignment Movement - confounded by clear facts, all that a Shotgun can do is to unload and make a hasty retreat, and shamelessly cop out with a childish shot.
It simply shows the maturity of one who believe in the false potency of a "Shotgun" - when the character is no better then a "short gun" capable of firing nothing more lethal then noisy blanks.
Surely I had expected higher standard from "The Shotgun", or perhaps it was sadly misplaced considering that it was a misnomer from the beginning as it should have been a simple "short gun" ?
What has Singapore membership in the Non-Aligned Movement to do with her membership dues in the United Nation ?
Being a member of the United Nation and the Non-Aligned Movement - has Singapore respected the Charter of both Organisations ?
Sadly, NO on both counts - as I had shown in my earlier response that clearly detailed how SG had abrogated the Non-Aligned Movement principles by associating so closely with the USA.
It is typical of LKY in his usual ways of using people and organisations to serve his own ends, and discarding them when he reach another rung up his "security ladder".
You did claim the necessity to hide the relationship between USA and SG so as not to alarm our neighbors - yet you will insist that since there is no FORMAL Alliance, then SG is NOT an ally of USA. It is amazing that without all the Formal Ties, and without the egging on of the papparazzi as you claimed, the Secretary of Defense William Cohen recognised and publicly stated that SG is a strong ALLY of the USA.
Period.
Clearly you are confused about the technicalities between Treaties of Alliances, M.O.U.s and any other forms that two partners can enter to solidify their status of co-operation.
Clearly you are confused about the status of the co-operation that Singapore has with the USA - to deny that SG is not a "formal ally" of the USA - when you had clearly tripped yourself with the shallowness in your thought process by taking on a position that is clearly out of your orbit.
It seems that you are being educated instead of achieving your boast to educate me.
Do I need to prove anything, or should you not prove if Obama had called any one of the World reknown despots up to this date to show that I am wrong ?
The problem with complacency with a simple mole on the face is that it can easily become a molehill, which in turn can become a mountain when you ignore the malignancy of that simple mole.
Only a superficial person will draw simple black-and-white conclusions from political issues, when politicians are smarter by taking advantage that the "full spectrum of White" can offer to perform their deeds.
-
Originally posted by pigsticker:
Wall of text?? that's cute coming from you. I've scanned through my posts and the most i have in one paragraph is only 4 lines max, which is about the same as yours.
While I like to continue the debate, seeing your reply telling me to learn to use paragraphing when my posts have the same paragraph structure as yours smacks of hypocrisy.
I don't see the need to continue talking to someone who tries to blame others when he/she made the error.
Have a good day.
You needed an opportunity to quit without having to drag the piggy tail along; and you should be grateful that you have been given one.
It is not surprising that with different issues that could have seen your response, you had instinctively pick the very door that was left open for you to quit.
-
Wow, I didn't even know I had any reputation to maintain here, please don't accredit me one by attaching "The" to my screen name.
I'll make it even simpler for you to understand.
Fact, MoUs are non-legally binding documents. Treaties are. Hence, we do not have any official treaty of alliance with the United States. Can you refute that Fact? Yes/No
If you cannot, you do not have any case. What Cohen says from his lips, is hardly a legally binding treaty don't you think?
Singapore position in the non-aligned movement Officially states that we are not aligned to any power bloc. Can you refute that Fact? Yes/No
Does it make any sense that we are involved in a movement that is contradictory to our foreign policy? Yes/No
The 9 countries that Obama called up, all have some form of treaties with the United States. Can you refute that? Yes/No
Does Singapore have any Official treaty with the United States? Yes/No
Your argument that Obama did not call PM LHL up because LHL's a despot, was it a fact or your own opinion? Fact / Opinion
If its fact, you must some how "Know" so. How did you know? Are you really Obama? Or did Obama tell you? Perhaps his staff told you?
There is a difference between an argument thats based on established facts and official sources, and one thats based on opinions and inferences. Yours is clearly based on your own opinion, which I doubt you are in any position to make, Amateur.
However, let me state that, you do provide a good amount of entertainment.
Though your views are clearly skewed and distorted, its still worth a good laugh. Here is a really funny example.
Did you read about Obama's attitude about changing the Bush Administration policy in not talking to despots, and of his desires to engage these despots without pre-conditions ?
Did you even know what that meant?
The Bush administration did not want to talk to "despots" whom they had issues with (eg North Korea) with out them first having met US Pre-conditions. (Eg. terminating of uranium enrichment or process of building such facilities)
Obama changing attitude was to meet these "despots" without any pre-conditions, to place diplomacy at the forefront of problem solving with these "despots." Therefore opening up channels of communications with them, as he firmly believes that issues can be resolved as long as people keep talking to each other.
How that became an example for "Obama being concerned about our despotism" really had me laughing out loud, really! How did that support your argument in a debate where you claimed that Obama did not want to talk to our Singapore's despots, WHEN it clearly showed that he was more willing to communicate to everyone?
If anything, you're not even sure what you are talking about half the time.
-
What in the world's up with Atobe?
He used to make pretty intelligent posts, now he's engaging more with insulting user names and behaving more like Gazelle and Andrew.
But thanks for the info Shotgun, up till now i always thought Singapore had a lot of legally binding agreements with the USA
-
Dear SG leaders and future leaders,
Nvm how other people look at u.First,ask yourself have done enough
for your country.Have confidence on yourself!
Rememebr.Think twice before u speak.
One wrong word can make the country in deep trouble,like Rudd.
Dunt follow Oz PM Rudd.
Even Rudd saluted to US President previously,Bush's photographer
still NOT put his hand shake photo in White House official site.
He seems is the ONLY ONE omitted!!
i have counted almost 17 different leaders appearing in
White House site.No Rudd is seen!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/images/20081115_p111508cg-0092-515h.html
Rudd saluted to Bush some time back.
-
As usual I find name calling and claiming "shotgun" as "short gun" and pig sticker with pig tail etc... pretty childish... If someone do not agree with him, he just start insults at their login name... It is rather...
...
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Wow, I didn't even know I had any reputation to maintain here, please don't accredit me one by attaching "The" to my screen name.
Is there any surprises left in one determine to seek attention ?
If you have no pride in the monicker that you claim for yourself, what role were you dreaming for yourself on this stage ?
It is not a surprise that an impotent will need buckshot - to hope against hope - that the target can be hit amidst all the smoke and sound that you have so expertly created.
I'll make it even simpler for you to understand.
Fact, MoUs are non-legally binding documents. Treaties are. Hence, we do not have any official treaty of alliance with the United States. Can you refute that Fact? Yes/No
It seems that your presumptious and childish cockiness mixed with an inflated ego has created an intoxication that blurred your sense of judgment of place and values -preventing you from seeing the hopeless hole that you have dug yourself into.
Are MoUs non-legally binding documents ?
What "facts" are you intending to reinvent from the bluster and false hits that you think have been achieved by your buckshots ?
After giving me the "wiki reference" in your last post, it seems that you did not attempt to educate yourself first before boastfully attempt to educate me. Perhaps you need some tutoring in some of the more important facts concerning MoUs as taken from your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding - which provided the following:-
1. In some cases, depending on the exact wording, MoUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding.
2. In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty database[1].
3. To determine whether or not a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e. a treaty), one needs to examine the intent of the parties and well as the position of the signatories.
4. One advantage of MoUs over more formal instruments is that, because obligations under international law may be avoided, they can be put into effect in most countries without requiring parliamentary approval. Hence, MoUs are often used to modify and adapt existing treaties, in which case these MoUs have factual treaty status.
FACT: Singapore has more then a dozen MoU with the US Government that allowed the various RSAF units to train in the USA.
FACT: If the MoUs are non-legal and non-binding, will the Singapore Government expose Singapore to sudden termination of our multi-million investments in weapons purchase and training in the USA ?
FACT: Shotgun deny the facts stated in his own referenced evidence.
FACT: How many more blanks does The Shotgun intend to shoot and hope to hit his target ?
If you cannot, you do not have any case. What Cohen says from his lips, is hardly a legally binding treaty don't you think?
It is not so clever in attempting to smoke your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.
Only the kid with a Shotgun will be so brazenly flippant as to deride an honorable William Cohen to be a lesser person then what you can possibly hope to be.
The words spoken from the lips of a US Secretary of Defense William Cohen which confirm the status of Singapore as a strong Ally of the USA - is collaborated from the number of MoUs that the US and SG Governments had committed to; and as well as from the support that SG Government had given not only in words but also in deeds.
Compared to your claim that "the idea of SG being an ally" was promoted by the paparazzi, it has now been shown that even the US Secretary of Defense recognised that SG is a firm Ally of the USA.
Is your naive verbal claim that SG is NOT an ALLY more plausible than that spoken by the US Secretary of Defense ?
Grow up, if you are so eager to hit your target.
FACT: SG has been consistently recognised as an Ally of the USA despite the changes made in the US Administration, and also by the US Congress and the Senate.
Singapore position in the non-aligned movement Officially states that we are not aligned to any power bloc. Can you refute that Fact? Yes/No
If Singapore is not aligned to any power bloc, she certainly behave in some very strange ways that the naive Shotgun fail to see through the smoke created by all the blank shots fired.
What the Non-Aligned Movement stated in its Charter is a FACT.
Unfortunately, the actions taken by the SG Government does not conform to its membership in the Non-Aligned Movement.
This can be seen in SG's role in supporting the unpopular US War in Iraq by sending an aerial refueling tanker and a LST to patrol and even taking command of a task force to patrol the closed waters north of the Straits of Hormuz.
Is it not strange that as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, SG willingly extend an invitation to the US Military to peruse the naval and air bases on Singapore soil ?
This is done even by ignoring the outcry from some of the founding members of the ASEAN countries - of which SG is one.
Is Singapore an active member of the Non-Aligned Movement ?
Can you refute this Fact ? Yes / No
Does it make any sense that we are involved in a movement that is contradictory to our foreign policy? Yes/No
FACT: Singapore's consistent unflinching support to the unpopular US war in Iraq, and open invitation to the US Military to use Singapore's military bases, as well as the multiple MoUs signed with the US Government - are actions that have contradicted the Principles of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Does LKY explain anything to Singaporeans for his actions in contradicting all that is printed in the Singapore Constitution, the National Anthem, the Singapore Pledge that proudly declare equality, freedom, democracy and justice ?
Does that make any sense ? Yes / No
Is contradiction not a feature in LKY's actions since the 1950s ? Yes ? No
FACT: LKY's style has been clear from the beginning of his involvement in politics - making use of any individual or organisation to advance his own goals.
FACT: In 1950s, LKY introduced Lim Chin Siong as the most capable Singaporean to be the future Prime Minister, only to arrange for Lim to be unkindly betrayed - as we now can see from the documents released by the British Colonial Office in London.
FACT: The consistent contradiction of LKY can be seen in his words and the deeds that follows:
2. "If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests." - Mr Lee Kuan Yew, 1962
3. : "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think." - Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, 20 April 1987
The 9 countries that Obama called up, all have some form of treaties with the United States. Can you refute that? Yes/No
I am surprised that you will want to change your position and ask me to refute that these 9 countries all have some form of treaties with the USA ?
Have you changed your mind to back track on the MoU not being included a different form of Treaties ?
Does Singapore have any Official treaty with the United States? Yes/No
Educate yourself with the wiki reference before you go about shooting blanks and conveniently cop out by making a fog out of your own ignorance.
Your argument that Obama did not call PM LHL up because LHL's a despot, was it a fact or your own opinion? Fact / Opinion
If its fact, you must some how "Know" so. How did you know? Are you really Obama? Or did Obama tell you? Perhaps his staff told you?
It clearly shows that you are desparately depending on cheap shots to desparately make your score count.
Firstly are you denying that this SG Government is not ruled by a Despot controlling events in Singapore ?
Are you denying that Singaporeans are unhappy and at the same time feel impotently helpless to the situation created by the despots that exist in Singapore ?
If Facts forms the Opinion, as much as opinion forms the Facts - can you know how to distinguish one from the other when your vision has been pulled tight by your cocksure ego ?
Can we depend on a naive boy with a need to act potent - to have any ability to discern what has transpired ?
There is a difference between an argument thats based on established facts and official sources, and one thats based on opinions and inferences. Yours is clearly based on your own opinion, which I doubt you are in any position to make, Amateur.
I am surprised that a cheap shot will know the difference between an argument that's based on established facts and official sources.
Could you even know how to absorb the established facts published in the sources that you depend as being the official interpretation for your meaning to MoUs and N.A.M ?
If you could not even absorb and use the information given from your own referenced pieces, what have your arguments been based on through all these posts ?
Are the facts based on your naive thoughts, or merely your cheap opinion ?
Now I wonder how professional can a gun-slinger be ?
However, let me state that, you do provide a good amount of entertainment.
Though your views are clearly skewed and distorted, its still worth a good laugh. Here is a really funny example.
Did you even know what that meant?
The Bush administration did not want to talk to "despots" whom they had issues with (eg North Korea) with out them first having met US Pre-conditions. (Eg. terminating of uranium enrichment or process of building such facilities)
Obama changing attitude was to meet these "despots" without any pre-conditions, to place diplomacy at the forefront of problem solving with these "despots." Therefore opening up channels of communications with them, as he firmly believes that issues can be resolved as long as people keep talking to each other.
How that became an example for "Obama being concerned about our despotism" really had me laughing out loud, really! How did that support your argument in a debate where you claimed that Obama did not want to talk to our Singapore's despots, WHEN it clearly showed that he was more willing to communicate to everyone?
If anything, you're not even sure what you are talking about half the time.
The problem with a cocksure kid is that he will laugh at any and every thing that is written with seriousness.
Unfortunately, laughter is a meer snide cover to distract attention to the guilt and shame of his own folly that has clearly been exposed, and which he is trying desparately to avoid by not engaging on the main core issues but delve on the peripheral matters.
What can be expected from an attention seeking kid desparately looking for the desired recognition from all and sundry ?
Can a kid hope to succeed and not be discovered when pretending to give mature political views even as he is totally unable to discern the nuances of politics ?
You would have faired better as a gunslinger in the Military corner, instead of dabbling in politics that clearly seems to be out of your orbit.
Mixing up timelines established by Obama to deal with despots, with his phone calls to US Allies already show up your inability to even grasp the differences in what has been so simply written about his actions up till then.
Your only way at making a pseudo grand performance is to ridicule and create the cheap diversion - to draw attention - from your disastrous mishandling of your own given referenced materials, and had even attempted to make an early cop out.
As was expected, your childish ego simply could not tolerate the sting that was administered to draw you back, and instead of engaging on the actual issues - all you can do is to confuse and ridicule the issues further.
If you are attempting to sow the seeds of doubt on me, you should try harder instead of taking mere pot shots with blanks fired from an impotent barrel.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
As usual I find name calling and claiming "shotgun" as "short gun" and pig sticker with pig tail etc... pretty childish... If someone do not agree with him, he just start insults at their login name... It is rather...
...
Well, at least you know what kinda person is behind those words.
Atobe, allow me to indulge myself and seek your entertainment further.
You say that MoUs can be legally binding some cases. Do you even know what these cases are where they are legally binding?
Following that, does Singapore have any existing treaty for the above mentioned MoU with the US to "legally" amend and attain "factual treaty status"? Please go give MFA a call or do you whatever research you see fit. I know for sure, there was not preceding treaty for the above MoU to amend, and hence not legally binding.
The Non-Aligned Movement is just a membership, signifying that they are not a member of a power bloc, and nothing like a formal alliance unlike NATO. It does not penalize its members for seeking friendship and cooperation in time of peace. There is no such thing as "active" membership. Its just membership or no membership.
Singapore's decisions to help out in Iraq is perhaps partially helpful to improve ties with the US, but there are very utilitarian views from LKY about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html
There are greater security implications with the power balance in the middle east that LKY, or Singapore is /ought to be concerned with.
Perhaps to refine my argument further. Obama's called up close allies, countries which have official treaties with them. Singapore's status is not one of official "Ally." Neither Singapore nor The US State Department's official stand on our relationship is one of "alliance." We are partners in many ways, but not in official status allies.
I'm not even worried about the nuances of our level of cooperation with the US simply because my argument is about status
Your argument is that Obama did not call Singapore because he did not want to speak to despots. Can you prove it with any facts? I'm not asking you to prove whether LKY is a despot, I'm asking you to prove Obama's explicit views on Singapore, and that his views affected the decision not to talk to us. How can you possibly prove that?
The link between our authoritarian government and Obama's non-inclusion of Singapore into his list of allies to call, is something you totally made up. Your Inference. Now known as the "atobe doctrine."
And honestly speaking, your argument is going OUT THE WINDOW, the moment Obama's administration talks to Singapore.
Your points on LKY are good, but nonetheless have no relevance unless you are able to prove the above. Until you can do that, I'll just treat it as the "populist" smoke bomb that it is.
Look amateur, the reason I think you so, is because you construct an argument out of inference and feelings. Opinions are nice to have, but don't really hold any weight in an argument unless it is an opinion from an authoritative source, which you are not.
You can call me whatever names you want, it just goes to show how immature and amateurish you are in arguments. Looks like after this episode, a number of users have seen that for themselves. You overlook the blatantly obvious facts (in this case status), and you construct an argument out inferences made out of non-relevant facts (Singapore's authoritarian government, LKY).
What does that go to show about you? Reckless, irrational and immature. Just like CSJ when he was younger. Making audacious claims without having factual evidence to back him up.
So what other names are you gonna call me now?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Well, at least you know what kinda person is behind those words.
We certainly do, don't we ?
Seeking undiscerning support from all and sundry, even from one who choose a monicker that turns logic on its head - which even a kindergarten kid will laugh at.
Atobe, allow me to indulge myself and seek your entertainment further.
You say that MoUs can be legally binding some cases. Do you even know what these cases are where they are legally binding?
Following that, does Singapore have any existing treaty for the above mentioned MoU with the US to "legally" amend and attain "factual treaty status"? Please go give MFA a call or do you whatever research you see fit. I know for sure, there was not preceding treaty for the above MoU to amend, and hence not legally binding.
Have you not shown yourself to be unobtrusively over-indulging with your display in self-indulgence as it is ?
Excuse yourself, if you cannot distinguish what is my opinion and what has been clearly extracted and quoted about "MoUs can be legally binding - in - some cases" ?
Was that statement not printed by the wiki-reference site given by Yourself - which you had originally depended for your argument, and which you had intended to educate me with in your claims concerning the issues that you insisted in your reckless ways ?
Why use MFA as a shield to hide your ignorance - when you know that MFA do not respond to any individual calls or queries of this nature ?
Why do you not call them yourself, and clear this matter up with an explanation from someone that you can name from the MFA who will discuss this with you, and giving his phone number in your next reply for purpose of verification ?
With your views being trapped by your limited and confused understanding of what a Treaty can be, should be, how to be, what to be - can we hope for your own progress in educating yourself first before attempting even to boast about educating me ?
You seem to be selectively reading the four varied points in my last reponse and that were extracted from your 'wiki-referenced' site - which you depended on to support your limited understanding of the MoUs between SG and USA.
Should we be suprised that you will now choose to rest your argument on Point No 4 alone - ignoring the other preceding points ?
There is no Treaty between SG and USA in the form that you are specifically demanding, and its non-existence does not mean that the MoUs do not have Treaty Status - as your claim has been debunked by your 'wiki' reference.
It looks as if you are either unable to comprehend the four points on the respective specific merit and / or when read as a whole; or that you are interested only to continue with your mischeivious insistence in the mistaken belief that there is NO Treaty between SG and USA.
The explanations given in your 'wiki-reference' has clearly indicated that MoU is another form of Treaty between countries. Period.
The Non-Aligned Movement is just a membership, signifying that they are not a member of a power bloc, and nothing like a formal alliance unlike NATO. It does not penalize its members for seeking friendship and cooperation in time of peace. There is no such thing as "active" membership. Its just membership or no membership.
You may want to qualify your statement that the N.A.M. movement is nothing like a formal alliance unlike NATO.
With your reliance on "wiki" as a reference point, perhaps you should take a peek into the rich amount of information that it has offered about the Non-Aligned Movement - and which has largely contradict and debunked your present statement.
If you do take an interest to truly educate yourself by taking a peek at the given "wiki" site, you should pay particular attention to (1) The Origin of N.A.M., (2) Organisational Structure, (3) Ongoing Policies and Ideology - more importantly - (4) Contemporary Relevance.
You may wish to note that - "The movement continues to see a role for itself - no longer by opposing superpowers, but rather in a uni-polar world, and it is Western hegemony and neo-colonialism that the movement has really re-aligned itself against."
If one is not an active adherent to an organisation, why join it in the first place ?
Unlike Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia - like so many other member nations of N.A.M - the other countries in N.A.M have behaved in less hypocritical ways by adhering to the N.A.M Principles of non-alignment.
This cannot be said of Singapore - and although no penalties are applied, the SG leadership has been treated with disdain, which largely explains for some of the less diplomatic opinions expressed in private - at times negative reactions expressed very publicly - by other government leaders.
Perhaps Singaporeans have been made to pay a higher price for some of the ill conceived policies adopted by our SG leaders.
Singapore's decisions to help out in Iraq is perhaps partially helpful to improve ties with the US, but there are very utilitarian views from LKY about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html
There are greater security implications with the power balance in the middle east that LKY, or Singapore is /ought to be concerned with.
You must be deluding yourself by assuming that the minisicular contribution from SG can determine whatever power balance in the Middle-east, when the USA cannot even prevent or determine how the end game will appear in Iraq.
Your point concerning the "very utilitarian views from LKY" is already well known - as he has been seen to be ruthlessly exploitative of circumstances to advance his own goals - and changing course without any qualms in sacrificing others whom he can treat as pawns from his chess board.
It only shows that SG membership in the United Nations and in N.A.M is for superficial purposes to gain recognition, while LKY has shown that he will not be bounded by the rules and conventions spelled out in the Constitutions of these Organisations.
He has even abused the very principle of an independent Singapore as clearly laid out in the Singapore Constitution - do you think that membership in N.A.M or the UN means anything at all to LKY ?
If it is pure utilitarian view, what is the point in your bringing up the fact that SG is a member of N.A.M. in the first place ?
Are you conceding now that SG is an ALLY of the USA - even as you derided the honorable Willian Cohen who said so, in his capacity as the US Secretary of Defense ?
Perhaps to refine my argument further. Obama's called up close allies, countries which have official treaties with them. Singapore's status is not one of official "Ally." Neither Singapore nor The US State Department's official stand on our relationship is one of "alliance." We are partners in many ways, but not in official status allies.
I'm not even worried about the nuances of our level of cooperation with the US simply because my argument is about status
You should only try to refine your arguments further, after you read, absorb and refine your own misguided understanding to your own "wiki" referenced material about M.o.Us and Treaties.
How much more "OFFICIAL" do you want SG to be before being recognised as being or having the status of an ALLY of the USA ?
From a study by Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies - (Pg 4 of 8) - it reported that "during 2004 the two countries continued to negotiate the Singapore-U.S. Strategic Framework Agreement, which will further define defense and security ties - although the exact details are not yet public. Frank Lavin, U.S. Ambassador to SGP, has defined this Framework Agreement not as a formal defense alliance, but as an agreement that will facilitate greater cooperation in terms of joint exercises.... The signing of an agreement is also likely to facilitate Singaporean access to U.S. defense technology."
The study had also highlighted the fact that SGP has to accomodate the feelings and politics of her neighbors, and find that formal alliance with the USA does not create any further advantage to both parties, while MoUs and Agreements seems more effective and help to achieve the immediate political and security requirements.
It also reported that SGP and the U.S. have been negotiating a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) that will facilitate co-operation between the two countries in combating money laundering through the banking system that unwittingly channel funds to terrrorists.
Here is one clear US-SGP Treaty that is non-threatening to SGP's neighbors - and is clearly announced; while the other military-security co-operation are achieved by less offending treaty-like MoUs that still have equal binding status as FORMAL as Treaty can be - {as stated by Your wiki site).
Your argument is that Obama did not call Singapore because he did not want to speak to despots. Can you prove it with any facts? I'm not asking you to prove whether LKY is a despot, I'm asking you to prove Obama's explicit views on Singapore, and that his views affected the decision not to talk to us. How can you possibly prove that?
You must be truly childish and naive to ask for proof, when the proof is already shown in his inaction in not calling a single despot from the list of countries that the State Department has classified as abusing the U.S. Principles of Political Freedom.
In the same reference piece from Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies - it had detailed that - "differences in political structure mean that the US and SG still do not see eye-to-eye on human rights issues...The U.S. State Department continues to cite a lack of political freedom in SG, but differences on this front do not impede economic, political and security cooperation"
"The U.S. State Department, in its annual human rights reports, finds that Singapore's judiciary is not wholly independent of the ruling party and that the courts are often used against political opponents. While noting that SG largely respects human rights, the 2003 report also noted the SG government's penchant to limit freedoms and 'handicap political opposition' ".
Do you think that Obama has no access to this State Department Report when it is available to the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies ?
Obama's views on talking to despots are clear.
The U.S. State Department views on Singapore politics are just as clear.
Do you think that Obama is not aware of events in SG - when Obama praise SG education system at a Democratic Election Rally in the recently concluded Elections ?
Do you think that the derisive remarks of the famed SG despot towards Obama - made months ago - has not reached him, when Obama is known to be an avid "Blackberry" user, and constantly fed with information from friends to the going-ons around the globe ? (see Times November Edition commemorating Obama's victory).
Do you need lessons to make inferences in forming your own conclusions ?
If you have been entirely educated in SG, it probably explains for your inability to make your research and consistent dependence on Black and White Answers placed on the table for your mind to ponder if it is even safe to absorb.
The link between our authoritarian government and Obama's non-inclusion of Singapore into his list of allies to call, is something you totally made up. Your Inference. Now known as the "atobe doctrine."
For one who pretend to be modest in not accepting any accredition, you seem to be keen to give yourself the qualification to return the unsolicted favor.
If this is not another cheap shot from one who has run out of buck shots, and with blanks left to create more smoke and sound to add on to the fog ?
How did you suddenly find the 'wherewithal' to make inferences on such peripheral issues - when you decline to make any effort on the main core issues propounded ?
How did you learn to make your own distorted inferences from my posts to end up with your pathetically ignorant opinion ?
Did you learn to selectively read what you want to accept, while turning a blind eye to what has clearly been too embarrassing and made your stand to become untenable ?
And honestly speaking, your argument is going OUT THE WINDOW, the moment Obama's administration talks to Singapore.
Was anything mentioned that Obama will not talk to SG's political leaders ?
What is the basis of your "inference" if you know how ?
Or is this another amateurish shot into the dark with the remaining buckshot ?
Surely he will call SG - but when ?
It was only towards the end of his first term that Bush finally had time to meet with Goh Chok Tong in 2003, and then only in the middle of the second term did he meet with LHL in mid-2005.
With Obama having to clear his immediate domestic problems, balancing finances to meet his promised programs, and settling the Iraq issues - he will then lined up his time to talk to the despots.
Obviously, the first despot called will be the one that he sees as the most urgent or the most wantonly despicable that need his attention to make changes to the status quo.
With so many of your own irrational, reckless and imaturity displayed, will you dare to venture to make any "inferences" from this statement ?
Your points on LKY are good, but nonetheless have no relevance unless you are able to prove the above. Until you can do that, I'll just treat it as the "populist" smoke bomb that it is.
Look amateur, the reason I think you so, is because you construct an argument out of inference and feelings. Opinions are nice to have, but don't really hold any weight in an argument unless it is an opinion from an authoritative source, which you are not.
Can anyone believe your self-indulging poppy-cock remark ?
How did you get through your tertiary education - if you had one - as it seems that you seem to be confused as to how an argument is formed, structured and presented ?
Firstly, do you even know what an "inference" is - or "inferences" are ?
If research works are not from one's opinions and feelings - from inferences made -can there be any successful outcome to any research works ?
Are "inferences" not -
- A position arrived at by reasoning from premises or general principles: conclusion, deduction, illation, illative, judgment. See reason/unreason.
Is it any surprise that you could not even make any "inferences" from your own "wiki reference sites" concerning 'MoUs' and 'N.A.M.' - when your reasoning capacity is non-existent ?
With you foggy ideas and emotions convictions on the subject issues trapping your already handicapped myopic views, it can only result in your arguments being so hollow - which make your cheap shots sound louder and creating more smoke then you could otherwise have achieve.
You can call me whatever names you want, it just goes to show how immature and amateurish you are in arguments. Looks like after this episode, a number of users have seen that for themselves. You overlook the blatantly obvious facts (in this case status), and you construct an argument out inferences made out of non-relevant facts (Singapore's authoritarian government, LKY).
Is it necessarry to place any label on you - when your own amateurish efforts in dabbling in this political corner has already revealed the egoistic 'aw shucks' nature of one who has little opinion of any substance, except to cause more trouble when taking on a bigger role of a trouble-shooter then you can actually manage ?
The only ones that seems to have taken note of this episode are the three jaywalkers - in Stevenson101, stupidissmart, and pigsticker - with the first two having no clue of their own to make, while the last one was merely a pedestrian out to kick a stone but got kicked instead.
Unless you count the noisy pussy to be of any substantive credibility - it confirms your self-indulgence in seeking recognition from all and sundry.
What obvious status can you possibly be referring to, or are you expecting anyone to infer some recognition to your position from your unsubstantiated nor qualified usage of the word "STATUS" ?
Only you will believe that SG Authoritative Government is of no consequence and irrelevant fact - while the U.S. Administration continue to place this in their annual assessment of countries that they deal with.
What does that go to show about you? Reckless, irrational and immature. Just like CSJ when he was younger. Making audacious claims without having factual evidence to back him up.
So what other names are you gonna call me now?
Was CSJ as reckless, immature, and irrational, or have you simply succumbed to the propaganda - which is so readily and easily absorbed by a naive, immature and politically undiscerning mind that is trapped in a self-indulging, egoistically, cock-sure braggart tightly fitted into a gung-ho Shotgun toting kid ?
It seems that the only one making more audacious claims is you - with your poor understanding of the MoUs, and N.A.M. to the extent of even making audacious rejection of facts by even ridiculing the honorable William Cohen's recognition of SG as a true ALLY of the U.S.A.
What has your argument been all about - that SG is not an ALLY of the USA, and / or that SG is not run by DESPOTS ?
The statements made in my post have been clear if you still want to dispute that SG is not an ALLY.
It is common knowledge that SG is run by leaders who pretend to be what they claim they are not, but in actual fact are no better then third world DESPOTS.
Obama's attitude towards DESPOTS are known - that they must be engaged and not left alone to do their evil deed to endanger the world - and he did say that he will call them at his own time.
The 9 countries that Obama called have ties to the USA that are of varying qualities, with some countries not having the quality relationship that SG has with the USA.
If you cannot make any "inference" from various issues that resulted in this thread - including The Despot's disparaging and reckless remarks about Obama - it will reveal your mental incapacity that probably borders on imbecilic impotence.
Seriously, in terms of immaturity, recklessness, and irrationality - it is not unique to CSJ alone, as one can see the same in LKY, LHL, GCT, MBT and other newly promoted Ministers in LHL's cabinet.
They had the good fortune of having the various print and broadcast media under their control, and allowed their immaturity, recklessness and irrationality not being emphasised, and the continuous publicity being muted.
Unlike them, the spotlight has clearly been focused on your irrational interpretation of your own reference materials, resulting in the extreme publicity being given to your immature political views, that seems to have bolstered your egoistic poppycock drive towards recklessness in your boastful annoucement to educate me.
It seems that you are not immune from your uncharitable remarks about CSJ.
Clearly you have no capacity even to distinguish your nose from your butt from all the foul air created by your persistent dependence on blanks fired from your shotgun.
Is there another name for an impotent shotgun ?
-
I don't really care whether US treats Singapore as an ally, strategic partner, means to an end, leverage, cooperative member, friend, a piece of s***, or otherwise.
These are just exoteric words to me.
I only care how to ensure I can pay for my mortgage, put food on the table, ensure my kids can go to school, etc.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
What in the world's up with Atobe?
He used to make pretty intelligent posts, now he's engaging more with insulting user names and behaving more like Gazelle and Andrew.
no leh, i've been around since 03 and atobe's been throwing insults since then whenever arguements/debates are lost. most of his stuff also anti govt rather then helpful info.
maybe he thinks if he push people away through personal attacks means he win the arguement liao.
-
no leh, i've been around since 03 and atobe's been throwing insults since then whenever arguements/debates are lost. most of his stuff also anti govt rather then helpful info.
maybe he thinks if he push people away through personal attacks means he win the arguement liao.
Yea i know he likes to make anti gov posts here. But kinda surprised he's resorting to making fun of user names now.
Before he just likes to call people blinded by the government propaganda.
-
I might get upset when I lose money on stock market, worry about possible job loss, and wondering how to service my mortgage payment.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Yea i know he likes to make anti gov posts here. But kinda surprised he's resorting to making fun of user names now.
Before he just likes to call people blinded by the government propaganda.
no leh
i forgot what it was about but i replied to something he said and he called me stinky bread or something like that and had a whole paragraph for my nick back in 03" or 04"