SGP a strong ally of USA - Leader not considered World Class
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
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.
Yeah, quite a testament to his character ain't it? I wonder what does he do in real life? I certainly do hope he's not an opposition MP or anything, else Singapore opposition scene is doomed.
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."
Hey Atobe, why didn't you highlight the part in red instead when you first post that up?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Yeah, quite a testament to his character ain't it? I wonder what does he do in real life? I certainly do hope he's not an opposition MP or anything, else Singapore opposition scene is doomed.
The old adage still seems valid - stand around and shoot the shit together.
What else can be expected from losers who cop out early and fall for a sting that was a set up to bring the ego back into an ambush ?
Plain dumb ego that need to be rub after being left in a sorry state.
Are you sure you can cope with reality, when you cannot even hold yourself together on your make-belief stage ?
If this is not simply putting the blame on others for your own sorry state, when you are the unchallenged, non-enterprising type of Singaporean that even The Despot lament he has to lead - and he certainly have led types like you into a cul-de-sac.
Why blame the Opposition for the sorry state of affairs, when Singaporeans like you do not even take up the cudgel to think for yourself but simply resigned to fate in not being able to produce someone better than yourself to be in the Alternative Parties ?
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."
Hey Atobe, why didn't you highlight the part in red instead when you first post that up?
Here again, you have fallen for another sting that was left for you to pick on, as it will be expected from one who will allow his ego to lead his thoughts, instead of allowing clear thoughts to mind the ego.
Do I need to highlight the part in red - when I could have edit it out from my quote taken from the article ?
Instead, this line was intentionally left in the paragraph as a "clay pigeon" for a trigger happy Shotgun to fire at it with more blanks, and create more entertainment.
Is there anything to hide - when the following statement in the article was also printed but which you had dishonestly left out of your piece - simply to serve your own ego to prove an invalid and mistaken conclusion ?
The full text of what I had printed was :-
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.
Surely you should be able to recognised the contents of the second paragraph which you prefer not to quote, and which surely you must be familiar to the meaning of the statement ?
Is the second paragraph not similar to your response on Pg 4, 16 Nov 08, 11.53PM - when you did offer the following statement:
"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."
If we need to maintain a form of "deniability" for the consumption of those whom we do not wish to offend, do we need to deny the facts to ourselves as well ?
So, are we aligned or are we not aligned ?
Here again, in negotiating the Singapore-US Strategic Framework Agreement - instead of using the term Treaty or even MoU - the spirit of this AGREEMENT is tantamount to that of a Treaty or even a MoU - as can be seen from the stated intent for this Agreement to be made. (It is obvious you did not read the wiki site given).
More importantly, it also concluded that - "The signing of an Agreement is also likely to facilitate Singaporean access to U.S. defense technology".
If this Agreement is not another Treaty what else can this Agreement be that allow Singapore access to U.S. defense technology ?
If you had the wherewithal ability to have clicked on the referenced site - Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies - as given in my last post, you will have also read that even as Singapore is not an "Official Ally" of the USA, Singapore is the only Asian country to participate in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme.
The JSF programme is an important programme for the US Air Force - which makes it even more surprising for Japan and South Korea not being invited to be a participant - despite their MORE Official Treaty status than Singapore.
So are we aligned or are we not aligned ?
Surely you have some courage not to lie to yourself on a simple issue such as this ?
-
Lets put it this way.
Suppose you are a secret friend of Mas Selamat. Secret. You are a friend, but not publicly announced.
And Mas Selamat has a list of open FRIENDS to call, eg Osama, al-Zawahiri etc... Does it make sense for him to include You in the list if both of you intend to keep your friendship under a shroud of plausible deniability?
In any case, Singapore's relationship with the US has never been one of official alliance (proven fact due to lack of treaties), but honestly speaking, plausible deniability has been a presumption on my part.
Still, because we do not have an official alliance, there was no reason to include us.
2ndly, We don't even know what other agenda was part of Obama's conversation with them. Singapore doesn't have to fit into EVERY plan that Obama has planend for the US around the world.
It is simply PRESUMPTIOUS of you to assume that Obama did not call Singapore because of "Despotic leaders" as you claim. Moreover, it even contradicts Obama's publicised policy of talking to people without pre-conditions. Obama's intentions as announced in the run up of his elections is to open communications with people the US has trouble with, and not just offer the silent treatment.
If the US is willing to do this for potential adversaries, isn't it counter-intuitive for the US to cold-shoulder friends and regional partners who offers facilities and bases for their Navy? Hello?
Singapore's JSF partnership is due the fact that we were willing to throw in our chips $ into the program. No doubt, JSF intends to market into South Korea and Japan, unfortunately, they aren't interested when they know that there's something better known as the Raptor. Hence, they don't intend to throw money into joining the JSF partnership. If Japan and South Korea wanted to, they can easily do it by just contributing and joining the program. Singapore is in because we were willing to throw in the chips, no doubt influenced by our Mexican advisors.
I think I've had enough of this. I realized that all your replies have been nothing but an effort to get me to keep coming back to engage in your empty nonsensical and unproven argument.
I'll leave it to the rest of the rational users following this thread to decide whose argument is more persuasive, logical and backed up by facts.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Lets put it this way.
Suppose you are a secret friend of Mas Selamat. Secret. You are a friend, but not publicly announced.
And Mas Selamat has a list of open FRIENDS to call, eg Osama, al-Zawahiri etc... Does it make sense for him to include You in the list if both of you intend to keep your friendship under a shroud of plausible deniability?
It seems that you are making your best efforts to fill up the gaping creditbility gap that you have been creating - can the credibility gap be filled with a tall tale ?
Comparing Singapore-US not so secret relationship with your whimsical Mas Selamat secret relationship with yourself may sound more plausible - as seen from your mysterious vigor in denying the existence of such a relationship based on your own foggy ideas concerning treaties, MoUs and even membership in N.A.M.
In any case, Singapore's relationship with the US has never been one of official alliance (proven fact due to lack of treaties), but honestly speaking, plausible deniability has been a presumption on my part.
Still, because we do not have an official alliance, there was no reason to include us.
The lack of any "official alliance" is not equated by "lack of treaties" - as the "Treaties" have taken a different format and with these "Treaties" disguised as 'MoU' and 'Agreements' - which YOUR offered 'wiki' reference sites have clearly stated that MoU's have the same formal status as TREATIES.
How much more OFFICIAL an alliance must be - when Singapore has supported the condemned U.S. policies in Iraq, even when the larger membership of the United Nations had disagreed strongly with the U.S. -and this included the majority of members of N.A.M. ?
2ndly, We don't even know what other agenda was part of Obama's conversation with them. Singapore doesn't have to fit into EVERY plan that Obama has planend for the US around the world.
Did anyone suggest that Singapore has to fit into EVERY plan that Obama has planned for the US around the world ?
The essence of this Thread is clearly stated and does intend to suggest more or less - the controversies created by readers like yourself deciding to read more to it.
FACT: Singapore is recognised by various US Administration, the US Congress and even the US Senate as a strong Ally of the USA.
FACT: LKY claims that Singapore has attained First World status.
FACT: Obama ignored Singapore in his first call to the 9 countries that he sees as more relevant to himself - whatever his agenda maybe (no presumptions nor have any inferences been made.)
It is simply PRESUMPTIOUS of you to assume that Obama did not call Singapore because of "Despotic leaders" as you claim. Moreover, it even contradicts Obama's publicised policy of talking to people without pre-conditions. Obama's intentions as announced in the run up of his elections is to open communications with people the US has trouble with, and not just offer the silent treatment.
If the US is willing to do this for potential adversaries, isn't it counter-intuitive for the US to cold-shoulder friends and regional partners who offers facilities and bases for their Navy? Hello?
Is it presumptious, or have you decidedly abandon to idea of "INFERENCES" having come to a conclusion to its true meaning after your previous flippant interpretation ?
With friends like Singapore's despots - making reckless immature remarks about the proper place for the eugenics of Blacks - does Obama need any enemies ?
For the sake of political pragmatism, USA has been prepared to accept the invitation by the Singapore despots to use the military facilities even as the USA and SG do not see eye-to-eye in the manner that the SG despots treat the Citizens.
Who says that I cannot continue talking to you, even if I do not share any common ground on many issues ?
I can simply ignore you if I wish to at my own time.
Obama has picked his time to ignore this supposedly sham First World Despots that practice Third World Politics.
Singapore's JSF partnership is due the fact that we were willing to throw in our chips $ into the program. No doubt, JSF intends to market into South Korea and Japan, unfortunately, they aren't interested when they know that there's something better known as the Raptor. Hence, they don't intend to throw money into joining the JSF partnership. If Japan and South Korea wanted to, they can easily do it by just contributing and joining the program. Singapore is in because we were willing to throw in the chips, no doubt influenced by our Mexican advisors.
Can the Raptor be better then the JSF - when the US is concerned about technology leaks, and will insist on a "watered down version" of the Raptor before allowing its sales overseas - even to one of its most trusted allies ?
From the US point of view :-
An assessment given by a Defense Correspondent concerning Japan's position seems to have differed from your stated assumptions of Japan's position towards the JSF Programme:
With regards to the South Korean's position, the same Defense Correspondent offers the follow views :
The cream of the comment about Singapore throwing its chip$ into the JSF programme seems to indicate Singapore's continued interest in insuring her security interest by strategically placing herself closer to the USA, and subtlely doing so without alarming her neighbors:
Simultaneously, Singapore’s government appreciates its geographic proximity to China and its other Southeast Asian neighbors and seeks to avoid being seen in the region as the tip of an American spear. The country has thus consistently sought to maintain a relationship with the U.S. that allows it to maximize the benefits of its relationship while minimizing what could be weighty costs.
Singapore has likewise demonstrated its commitment to this strategy when it decided in 2005 to purchase a squadron of F-15 aircraft against France’s Rafale fighter, reaffirming the value of close ties with the U.S. Air Force in its acquisition and use of military aircraft.
Sustained, strong ties with Canberra and other countries in the region also reinforce Singapore’s ability to benefit from growing interoperability among U.S. security partners in Asia, and the city-state bases a portion of its air force in Australia.
This hedged relationship with Washington is reflected in Singapore’s tie to the JSF program, in which it is participating as an “international security partner.”
In that role, Singapore has maintained representation at the JSF program office in the U.S. without having to make any financial commitment through the SDD phase of the program. When the JSF is released for sale through the foreign military sales program, Singapore will enjoy being at the front of the queue for purchases (along with Israel), whereas nonpartner countries will have to line up afterward.
If the degree of Singapore’s participation in the JSF demonstrates how it seeks to use its hedged relationship with Washington to maintain as broad a set of strategic options as possible, South Korea presents an opposite trend, where Seoul is reluctant to commit to closer ties to Washington despite being a formal ally.
Seoul recently procured a large number of F-15 aircraft from the U.S., but its emphasis on developing more self-reliant defense capabilities conflicts with the possible benefits for working with Washington on a program like the F-35 or even taking a qualified role as a security cooperation partner.
These were the comments about the reasons for the various Asian countries decisions concerning the JSF programme.
I think I've had enough of this. I realized that all your replies have been nothing but an effort to get me to keep coming back to engage in your empty nonsensical and unproven argument.
I'll leave it to the rest of the rational users following this thread to decide whose argument is more persuasive, logical and backed up by facts.
Here again you presume too much of your own relevance to my scheme of things.
As much as you claim to have been entertained by these exchanges with me, have you realised that you are the one providing entertainment with your reckless and immature inferences on subjects that reveals the "hat is simply to big for your head" ?
The only reason in putting the sting and draw you back is to test the character of the person - behind the "presumptious" moniker - that I thought you will be, and each time it confirms all that has been mentioned as seen from the deep hole that you have dug for yourself through each response made.
You were and remain at liberty to choose not to reply - somehow the vain ego prevent you from doing so, and with your reply not having much more to add or clarify your misleading positions that have been consistently debunked.
Empty nonsense from my writings and unproven arguments ?
The facts of my written argument are based entirely on your own references given posted in your responses:
FACT: MoUs are as good and Formal as Treaties are made to be.
FACT: Singapore is an Ally to the USA - with or without Formal Declaration of Alliance - as seen by the number of strengthening Defense Ties from the MoUs and Agreements concluded.
FACT: LKY claim Singapore is a First World Country.
FACT: Obama did not call Singapore amongst the countries he sees as strong Allies.
-
Why not put it as a "American As* Kisser"?
-
Originally posted by Alucard101:
Why not put it as a "American As* Kisser"?
its the other way round, Our Gahmen as the ass kisser
-
The way I see it, this is just a pointless discussion about political semantics. Whether SG has many "binding treaties" with the US is irrelevant because when the US is the dominant superpower since the end of WWII, it is only natural for SG to be "aligned" with the US despite all the politically correct professions of non-alignment to ensure that we still have some kind of credibility with our not-so-pro-American neighbours. Moreover, it is SG's alignment with the western bloc that allowed us to develop so rapidly given our dependence on trade.
Arguing with hyperlinks to this treaty or that MoU is irrelevent. In the end, it is all semantics to whitewash the real state of affairs. An example. The Declaration of Human Rights, which SG and the US have signed, proclaims:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Do you think both of these so-called "rights" are observed in SG or the US? Do you think it matters among the international conspiracy, I mean, community? When the US declares a War on Terror (how do you defeat a tactic?), among its official allies are Pakistan (then) and Saudi Arabia. Ironically, those states couldnt be called a bastion of freedom and democracy in any way at all. Yet, they are grouped together with the "free world" led by the US. Even though the US tortures, SG violates freedom of expression, does that matter in SG-US relations?
So my point is this, for the sake of political correctness, international politics demands the need to frequently say black is white and white is black. During the balkanisation campaign, the US (NATO) called the bombing of Kosovo "humanitarian bombing". Can any intelligent and humane person say "humanitarian bombing" with a straight face?
What is on paper doesn't matter. Like Atobe pointed out, why would SG allow US military forces use our territory? Even if we hated the US with the fervour of the Iraqis, the fact remains that we are horribly dependent on them, as the world's largest military, political and economic power (even though multipolarity is developing as we speak). In the same way, which country wouldnt SG, officially say, we're a good ally of, vice versa?
On retrospection, SG needs to be a strong ally of all the countries we can do business with. How much clout do we actually have on the international stage without good international relations? Because we dont have the cash and balls of Hugo Chavez, SG has to go along with the dominant western bloc headed by the US.