One less ally
Charge 7
Master Gunner
One issue among many does not unmake the Australians as allies. Particularly when as the Senator says in the web page you included, Rabs, that they are already supporting us to the point of being stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the US is just facing reality.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Charge 7 said:
I agree however there is one small issue:
The ANZUS treaty is really only a treaty in name these days and I doubt either of the remaining parties believe it to be "binding" given that it only offers assistance in the event that one party is attacked thus an action in a country outside of the ANZUS treaty nations does not necessarily invoke the treaty.
That being said I would expect that in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan both Australia and New Zealand would assist in anyway they could.
Bory
Active member
Australia, probably would not get invovled directly. We have strong diplomatic relations with both the PRC and USA, and we don't want to damage those relations by taking sides.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do beleive Australia still hasn't offically recognised Taiwan anyway.
Australia will definetly be invovled in a Conflict so intense and close to our backyard, but as I'm niether a stratigest nor a Diplomat, so I really don't know what that involvment will be.
Most likely in my opinion, Australia would act as a median between both nations. Of course our mates across the Tasman, will stand by us. We would most likely be incharge of pre-conflict and post-conflict negoitaions. We would clearly not want to fight in such an intense war, but if there is no other reasonable alternative we will.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do beleive Australia still hasn't offically recognised Taiwan anyway.
Australia will definetly be invovled in a Conflict so intense and close to our backyard, but as I'm niether a stratigest nor a Diplomat, so I really don't know what that involvment will be.
Most likely in my opinion, Australia would act as a median between both nations. Of course our mates across the Tasman, will stand by us. We would most likely be incharge of pre-conflict and post-conflict negoitaions. We would clearly not want to fight in such an intense war, but if there is no other reasonable alternative we will.
phoenix80
Banned
That is not what is actually happening here.
There's been a lot of confusion about ANZUS - some people have misunderstood the ANZUS treaty and come to the conclusion that this treaty obliges Australia to participate in nearly all US wars (and for that matter, vice versa). Many people are under the misapprehension that Australians served in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars as a result of the ANZUS treaty. This is not the case.
ANZUS is a very specific treaty set up with a very specific purpose. It relates only to attacks on the territory of the signatory nations, or on their maritime assets, and only in some circumstances.
It has not been at all helpful for some people to try and claim that this treaty addresses issues that it does not address - and that has happened so many times.
All that the US has acknowledged here is that Australia is not obliged to automatically support the US in a war with China over Taiwan. That acknowledgement has been necessary only because some ill informed people have consistently tried to claim that ANZUS does oblige Australia to do so.
Acknowledging that the ANZUS treaty does not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in such a war, is not the same as saying Australia would not become involved in such a war.
ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in Vietnam. ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Gulf War of 1991, ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Iraq War of 2003.
But in all those cases, Australia chose to become involved despite there being no automatic obligation to do so. By the same token, ANZUS did not oblige the US to become automatically involved in Australian operations in East Timor.
But again, despite there being no automatic obligation for the US to become involved in East Timor, nonetheless, the US did provide significant support to Australian lead operations.
Australia was however obliged to go to war in Afghanistan under ANZUS - as that war was directly related to an attack on the mainland of the United States - which is one of the triggers for ANZUS.
The point is that all the US has done here is acknowledge that the ANZUS Treaty says what the ANZUS Treaty says - it's written down in black and white. Australia would not be automatically obliged to participate in such a war.
The only reason the US has had to make that acknowledgement is because of the media trying to stir up trouble - the US government has certainly always been aware of what ANZUS actually says - it's made this acknowledgement just so hopefully the media will now become less likely to misrepresent it all the time.
That does not mean Australia would not participate in such a war - as it did in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars without ANZUS playing any role at all. It's just that participation is not automatic.
There's been a lot of confusion about ANZUS - some people have misunderstood the ANZUS treaty and come to the conclusion that this treaty obliges Australia to participate in nearly all US wars (and for that matter, vice versa). Many people are under the misapprehension that Australians served in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars as a result of the ANZUS treaty. This is not the case.
ANZUS is a very specific treaty set up with a very specific purpose. It relates only to attacks on the territory of the signatory nations, or on their maritime assets, and only in some circumstances.
It has not been at all helpful for some people to try and claim that this treaty addresses issues that it does not address - and that has happened so many times.
All that the US has acknowledged here is that Australia is not obliged to automatically support the US in a war with China over Taiwan. That acknowledgement has been necessary only because some ill informed people have consistently tried to claim that ANZUS does oblige Australia to do so.
Acknowledging that the ANZUS treaty does not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in such a war, is not the same as saying Australia would not become involved in such a war.
ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in Vietnam. ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Gulf War of 1991, ANZUS did not oblige Australia to become automatically involved in the Iraq War of 2003.
But in all those cases, Australia chose to become involved despite there being no automatic obligation to do so. By the same token, ANZUS did not oblige the US to become automatically involved in Australian operations in East Timor.
But again, despite there being no automatic obligation for the US to become involved in East Timor, nonetheless, the US did provide significant support to Australian lead operations.
Australia was however obliged to go to war in Afghanistan under ANZUS - as that war was directly related to an attack on the mainland of the United States - which is one of the triggers for ANZUS.
The point is that all the US has done here is acknowledge that the ANZUS Treaty says what the ANZUS Treaty says - it's written down in black and white. Australia would not be automatically obliged to participate in such a war.
The only reason the US has had to make that acknowledgement is because of the media trying to stir up trouble - the US government has certainly always been aware of what ANZUS actually says - it's made this acknowledgement just so hopefully the media will now become less likely to misrepresent it all the time.
That does not mean Australia would not participate in such a war - as it did in Vietnam and in both Gulf Wars without ANZUS playing any role at all. It's just that participation is not automatic.
DTop
Active member
The full text of the ANZUS Treaty, read it for yourselves.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/foreign/anzus/anzus-treaty.shtml
Another reference on the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS
http://www.australianpolitics.com/foreign/anzus/anzus-treaty.shtml
Another reference on the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS
Bory
Active member
I don't think ANZUS had been used for the basis of any military Operation since it was signed. It is just to formalise our alliance with the US and NZ, and so on with the other nations.
As Phoenix said before, Australia would not likely act as a median, but that was also just my opion of what they should do, not what they would do realistically.
Basically these days when their is a conflict going on in South Pacific, Australia and New Zealand feel obliged to get invovled because of it's close proximity to us, and because of the US assests in both countries they are also obliged to become invovled, though maybe not as direct as AUS an NZ.
I think the only reason this article was published was bevause recently the former Federal Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, published a book on his thoughts at the last federal election, detailing his desire to ditch the AUS-US alliance. The media put on a fuss over it for about a day and moved on, due to lack of intrest.
As Phoenix said before, Australia would not likely act as a median, but that was also just my opion of what they should do, not what they would do realistically.
Basically these days when their is a conflict going on in South Pacific, Australia and New Zealand feel obliged to get invovled because of it's close proximity to us, and because of the US assests in both countries they are also obliged to become invovled, though maybe not as direct as AUS an NZ.
I think the only reason this article was published was bevause recently the former Federal Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, published a book on his thoughts at the last federal election, detailing his desire to ditch the AUS-US alliance. The media put on a fuss over it for about a day and moved on, due to lack of intrest.
I think we will always be along side the US in some way, directly (like Iraq, Afghanistan) or indirectly. We didn't get invloved in the Falklands war but we sent a ship to the Mediterannean so that a British ship on duty there could be released for combat in the South Atlantic. We might provide bases and supplied to US if, God forbid, war broke out over Taiwan.
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
The Australia are just like the US. They are though people and don't take crap from no one. They've been there by our side. And if need be. We, the United States of America would be by their side. I've worked with their troops in Afghanistan. Though, smart, and balls of steel. My one and only deal with them is their beer. That's it. Nothing else.
Luis (5.56X45mm)
PS - I don't like the fact that their firearm rights were striped away from them.
Luis (5.56X45mm)
PS - I don't like the fact that their firearm rights were striped away from them.
Personally, as a member of the Australian army reserve and being very keen on China and its situation as I am, I would rather be trialled for treason then ever fight in a war against the Chinese.
As for whether Australia would decide to fight, our country would likely spill over into mass rioting over the matter, given some cities claim 30% asian background. Additionally, its no rumor that Australians are hostile towards the US foreign policy, regardless of what John Howard does. We support him because the other party has been leaderless for over a decade.
In any case, one of the two countries needs to do something highly belligerent to provoke such a war (the situations colder than its ever been) and America is as protagonist as they come.
As for whether Australia would decide to fight, our country would likely spill over into mass rioting over the matter, given some cities claim 30% asian background. Additionally, its no rumor that Australians are hostile towards the US foreign policy, regardless of what John Howard does. We support him because the other party has been leaderless for over a decade.
In any case, one of the two countries needs to do something highly belligerent to provoke such a war (the situations colder than its ever been) and America is as protagonist as they come.
For some reason i doubt you would be, but doesn't treason carry the death penalty? And when you joined the Army did they sit you down and say: "right, heres a list of potential conflicts, please tick the boxes to indicate which ones you would be interested in participating in".
Jesus mate, your statement is an embarrasment to every Digger who has answered the call and fought on a foreign shore. Because thats who we really fight for mate, not Her Majesty the Queen, not Johny, Not Air Marshal whats his name. We fight for the Aussie soldiers before us who have fought and died, so as we can do our best to uphold the ideals that they fought for, and know that we didn't fail them.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Craftsman said:
I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments but there is a slight problem with todays militaries that didnt really affect those before them and that is that racial/nationality lines have been greatly blurred since the days of WW1 and WW2 therefore militaries are no longer comprised solely of natives of one country but instead are made up of generations of immigrants ie I am sure the Aussie military is made up of Australians of Italian, German, Asian, Indian, Iranian, Iraqi etc. decent (more so than it was during WW1 and WW2) and I would imagine it would be very difficult for them to fight against nations that their families came from.
To some degree I think this is a phenomonon that armies around the world are going to have to consider in the future and while it may sound silly the form with the "opt out" check boxes may not be that far away.
Craftsman said:
Don't be so bloody selfish as to use the good name of dead Australian soldiers to support your own opinion. If your trying to shame me, be a man about for piss sake. We fight for the eachother and for all Australians. If I were to believe my men were ordered to fight against the will of the Australian people then its my decision to accept whatever consequences that may have for me. The same reason I would give my life in a conflict for country, I would give it in the honour of what I thought right.
+ very fair statement monty
AussieNick
Forum Digger
"It's not our place to question why, tis our place to do and die".
You become a soldier and you've gotta deal with that. It's not your choice, you don't have to like it, but you will fight for your mates if nothing else.
We don't have any form of capital punishment in Australia... so no, it doesn't carry the death penalty.
You become a soldier and you've gotta deal with that. It's not your choice, you don't have to like it, but you will fight for your mates if nothing else.
We don't have any form of capital punishment in Australia... so no, it doesn't carry the death penalty.
What a load of patriotic BS. No digger i know gives a crap about the Australian people as a whole, because they are a bunch of media controlled whinges. Fighting for each other is more accurate but still, the thousands of support roles in the defense force don't rock into a hostile country because they love their grunt brothers. Diggers 10 Kilometres away loading rounds into a 105mm gun arn't doing it for the men next to them. It's a job champ, and your vision of the Australian soldier resembles that of a choko that has seen too many war movies.
Now your my hero, can i shake your hand right now? :roll:
It's not up to any of us who or when we fight, accept it.
When the stuff hits the fan then we're motivated by men that did it before us, otherwise, we're motivated by the money getting put into our bank accounts. And you can't get any more real then that.