 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                 Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| It was during an interview, actually. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Ziff's right population-wise, our population is 20 million to America's 300 million, so roughly one 15th of the US. However our military is much smaller than one 15th of the US... the Australian Defence Force has a bit over 60 000 personnel split between the Army, Navy and Air Force versus about 2.2 million for the US. We have 20 000 reservists but we don't have an equivalent to the National Guard, and there hasn't been any form of draft or conscription since Vietnam. Australia is very much oriented towards a small and very professional armed forces. At any rate, by my maths, America has 1/15th of its armed forces in Iraq versus Australia having 1/40th. Spending-wise, we'd be fronting a LOT less, proportionately.
Ignoring the numbers game, Obama's point that the Australian contribution is symbolic is essentially valid. Australia doesn't start its own wars and it doesn't fight alone anywhere outside of the little islands to our north and east. There's a reason we don't get listed beside the UK as a significant player in Iraq. Howard likes to act like he's personally fighting the terrorists and like we're more important than we are, and he'll usually use the excuse that we have other engagements (East Timor, Bouganville, Solomon Islands) as to why we don't have more forces over there, but Australia is very much a middle power, not a major player. Our economy is about 17th biggest in the world and our defence spendingis 12th, between India and Turkey. It's worth noting that we haven't had a single fatality in Iraq from combat save for an SAS soldier killed by a mine and a soldier called Private Kovco who died from a firearms accident last year. Australia's ground contingent during the invasion Iraq was primarily SAS special forces, who undertook covert pre-war operations. Now, our SAS are absolutely world-class, some of the best soldiers in the world, but speical forces can only do so much. Our contingent now consists mostly of forces in non-combat roles (my dad was in the Green Zone in an intelligence capacity for a while) and embassy security (for some reason, the Australian embassy was/is outside the Green Zone. Now, Australia's forces are, pound-for-pound, almost certainly of a higher quality than the average US unit (particularly in peace-enforcement, guerilla, and counter-insurgency type roles, to the extent that American forces are now seeking Australian advice and expertise on these things) based on what I know of ADF and US military training and operations, but still, 1400 is nothing even if they're the best dang 1400 soldiers in the world. To put it simply, Howard was not ever going to risk copping flak over Australian combat-deaths in Iraq and wasn't going to mount a hugely expensive deployment. It's a token force and that's why the Obama retort was such an OOOOH SNAP moment. The deployment, as always, was more about the American alliance than anything to do with Iraq--we've been involved in every American war since WW2. The American alliance is the major cornerstone of Australian defence strategy and traditionally this has been treated as FOLLOW THE AMERICANS AT ALL COSTS rather than pursuing a more independent approach, although we almost certainly wouldn't get involved in an American-Chinese dispute over Taiwan even if we don't say so publically. This Alliance is held sacrosanct even as we try to "enter Asia" (mostly in trade terms, security is an afterthought), it's sacrosanct even though there's not really any military threats to this country at all. I mean, Indonesia and China are often cited, but they're long-term trading partners and simply not a concievable military threat... Indonesia has no force projection and China is a long way away, geographically, plus we've got innate geographical advantages to rival Russia's (attacking our half-dozen largest cities is the logistical equivalent of attacking, say, London, Lisbon, Rome, Moscow and Athens at the same time), in the incredibly unlikely event of actual full-scale war. But I guess the thinking is an insurance policy can't hurt. In some ways the close relationship is just habit... the UK was the "Great and Powerful Friend" until that fell through in WW2, then the US saved us from the Japanese and so they became our new best friend. It's also worth noting that the relationship is decidedly assymetrical, in that most Americans barely know we exist, much less that this country sees itself as having a British-style "special relationship" with America. Whereas we tend to obsess over the relationship with the US. Howard is actually being criticised now for putting the alliance at risk in the long term by treating the relationship like it's between two political parties (the Liberals and the Republicans) rather than between two countries. (edited by Arwon on 02-14-07 12:36 PM) (edited by Arwon on 02-14-07 12:48 PM) (edited by Arwon on 02-14-07 12:50 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Blair as a Labor man is an exception to that, of course. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Maybe so, but he primarily jumped into the war out of some misguided hope of guiding the Americans in wise directions and generally exercising a moderating influence. I kinda feel for the guy, actually. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| As if to underscore the point about the assymetry of the Australian-American alliance, the US Ambassador today said he has never read the 840 word ANZUS treaty document, theoretically our equivalent of NATO treaty, on which the alliance is supposedly based.
Ooops! (edited by Arwon on 02-15-07 12:32 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| If you have to ask "is it art?" that means it is. Art is basically whatever someone can get away with. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| Most cars in Brazil can run on anything from 100% gasoline to 100% ethanol and any mixture in between. A lot of newer cars elsewhere in the world run on any mixture as well, simply because it's easier than making separate parts for each fuel type.
I'm not sure the land-area argument holds very well, since as I say something like 0.5% of Brazillian land area is needed to run its entire ethanol industry. This is a country roughly half the size of the US popultion-wise and of a similar total area. Even if America can't get a very efficient ethanol thing going because corn syrup doesn't work very well, there's still places they grow sugar and at a pinch they can import from Brazil instead, surely? You're not going to see coast-to-coast farming purely to fuel cars. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| That it is difficult to define and basically limited only by the imagination of artists. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 5909 days Last view: 5909 days |
| ||
| What are you looking for, exactly, Samurai? A neat succinct definition of the sum total of human creative output? Ain't gonna happen. The thing with definitions is that by their very nature they set boundaries and criteria, and if there's one thing art is good for it's pushing and questioning boundaries and criteria.
You're not gonna get anything deeper or more profound than "art is basically anything people want it to be". Actually, is that the point you're seeking to demonstrate? (edited by Arwon on 02-16-07 11:52 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
