Jump to content

The ANZUS treaty does not make Australia safer.


Dax
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-01/anzus-70th-american-alliance-make-us-safer-or-military-threat/100424882

 

"The belief is the treaty — and the deep friendship between our two countries — gives Australia special access to advanced American military technology that we need (although not at a discount).

And, more importantly, that it keeps us under an American security umbrella. Australians can rely, in the recent words of one senior bureaucrat, on the "protection afforded" by ANZUS.

 

This assumption rests specifically on Article IV of the treaty, in which each party "declares that it would act to meet the common danger". This language is widely assumed to constitute a security guarantee from the US. However, the reality is, it does not."

 

An interesting article, don't agree with some of the conclusions drawn by the writer, but there are some good points and we should be designing and building our own defence systems and material. There are many reasons why relying upon overseas defence equipment suppliers, leaves this country extremely vulnerable. Although in my mind, any invasion of Aus, will come from those fleeing the collapse of northern hemisphere societies and as we have a few billion people living in areas which will collapse dramatically in the near future,  we need deterrents that will stop an invasion through the sth Asia archipelago.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article and probably worth getting the book to go into more detail. Article IV certainly does not guarantee security as it only deals with a common threat. In other words, if it is a threat to the US, they will make a move.. so in reality, it is a useless article. However, unfortunately, we didn't rely on that article and say that the terrorism threat posed by Afghanistan's harbouring of cells did not pose a threat to Australia when we decided to hop on the Afghanistan bandwagon. Somehow, NZ has emerged as the stronger moral compass of all three in the alliance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant to the treaty the USA has a vested interest in Aus security, without Aus, they are blind to most of the planet and near space. There are a number of surveillance and early warning stations around Aus that the US needs for them to remain safe and able to communicate with their forces, especially submarines.

11 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Jerry is there any evidence from recent times for Oz or the US having any form of moral compass?

Don't think there's any religiously controlled country that can claim to have a moral compass and most certainly no ethical compass. I see morals as a conceptual concept made up to suit the requirements of the ruling ideology, where ethics can been seen throughout the animal kingdom, but never within ideological humanity. That's the difference, other life forms live within and ethical code, ideological humanity lives within separate moral codes, which have no relationship to reality.

 

The ANZUS treaty is like all treaties, is only worth the paper it's written on and only enforceable if it suits those involved. I also have little faith in the USA coming to Aus defence, especially if they are not initially involved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dax, I chose moral compass carefully, and I hate to say it, but you have my old Avery reel spinning like carp on that lure.. I don't entirely disagree with you, by the way (exceptions listed below), but a moral (or ethical) compass is highly subjective. I am guessing, although we differ in opinions of various matters, we have a very similar moral and ethical compass. But does a religious zealot not believe that the religious cause they live for is not moral? I would argue, no. As an example, take the Taliban - do they believe what they are doing is wrong? I highly doubt it.. I believe they think what they are doing is of the utmost moral and ethical right. Does a murderer believe what they are doing is wrong?? They may know society thinks they are wrong, but do they feel they are morally justified. I would argue a high proportion believe they are. And, they may well believe that in the execution (pun intended) of the deed, they had the highest integrity.

 

I would argue the religious and otherwise (to me) morally corrupt do have a moral compass.. in their context.

 

14 minutes ago, Dax said:

The ANZUS treaty is like all treaties, is only worth the paper it's written on and only enforceable if it suits those involved. I also have little faith in the USA coming to Aus defence, especially if they are not initially involved.

In a word of few absolutes, absolutely true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I am guessing, although we differ in opinions of various matters, we have a very similar moral and ethical compass. But does a religious zealot not believe that the religious cause they live for is not moral? I would argue, no

I have no moral compass, my life experiences removed that ridiculous concept from my mind, I work within an ethical frame work and one which raised it's head after my last NDE, freeing me from ideological enslavement. All morals are just excuses to suit certain ideological aims, they are not based on the reality of the world, or any caring nature, just desire to suppress, control, abuse and influence. 

 

The USA and in fact probably all countries work within moral barriers, none work within ethical ones, or the world would not be in the position it is. Ideological humanity kill, destroy and abuse all life, claiming it their right. Their morals are designed for humans, animals have no rights, nor does any other form of life, just humans and that's why we are in such a predicament.

 

An ethical approach to life see all life as sacred, not to be abused or enslaved and not to be used as sporting, or gluttony targets. Which means I have very little time for ideological humanity and all the time in the world for every other life form, so more than happy to see most of humanity removed from the planet and if that include me to make it a better world, that's fine. As long as it has no detrimental effect on other life.

 

Sadly most nations are either warmongers or ideologically suppressive regimes and apologists for their major cult beliefs.

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Does a murderer believe what they are doing is wrong?? They may know society thinks they are wrong, but do they feel they are morally justified. I would argue a high proportion believe they are. And, they may well believe that in the execution (pun intended) of the deed, they had the highest integrity.

Having spent parts of my life within the criminal world, have reasonable idea of where many of their minds sit. Of course they all think their actions are justified according to their moral compass, but there is nothing ethical in their actions and their words are empty to someone like me. I support the death penalty for certain acts of violence and criminality, it's only the insipid and extremely hypocritical society morals which preclude the death penalty or life meaning life for serious crimes of violence. But that's hard to accomplish when we have such a bizarre and reprehensible biased and elitist justice system. Yet that same system, condones invasion, war and external violence. At the same time their morals free very dangerous people to commit the same crimes over and over, because they class it as morally wrong to remove someone from society permanently and we must feel compassion for perpetrators.

 

That's what morals do and you're welcome to them. I'll stick to ethics, which treats life equally until until it displays otherwise, then its' all guns blazing.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dax said:

they all think their actions are justified according to their moral compass, but there is nothing ethical in their actions

A moral conscious is an internal device - unique to each individual like a Rolex with its unique serial number. However, society works by the majority of us having the same model Rolex. 

 

"Ethical" is external to the individual and is the consensus of the society the individual lives in. We all might have the same model Rolex, but society doesn't work unless each one shows roughly the same time. That's how we judge the ethics of an individual - are they "on time?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, old man emu said:

A moral conscious is an internal device - unique to each individual like a Rolex with its unique serial number. However, society works by the majority of us having the same model Rolex. 

 

Think we may differ here, I see morals as relating to what is right and wrong in human behaviour, based on what an individual organisation of group thinks is right for most people and agreeing with at as a standard of behaviour.

 

58 minutes ago, old man emu said:

"Ethical" is external to the individual and is the consensus of the society the individual lives in. We all might have the same model Rolex, but society doesn't work unless each one shows roughly the same time. That's how we judge the ethics of an individual - are they "on time?"

 

Ethical behaviour I see as behaviour determined by the viewable reality of natural life, not the human reality determined by moral concepts, which are orientated to control and fantasy beliefs.

 

World human society doesn't work for the good of anyone, because it works on constructed morals. If it did, we wouldn't have enslaved animals, war, environmental destruction, religion, or social violence.

 

The animal kingdom for want of a better word, as humans are animals, works on an ethical basis of what is good and reasonably peaceful for all. We see this in every aspect of non human life, where the majority only kill or take what they need to survive and never for the thrill or fun of the kill. The rest of the time, they live peaceably with each other.

 

Humans kill, enslave and abuse other life, purely for the joy of the kill and for greed and gluttonous reasons. That's why they are always at war, they live by constructed ideological moral codes, not the ethical ones we see in the natural world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a look at the dictionary meanings of ethical and moral and I think you will find they are intertwined in each other.

I recently saw an article by a proponent of religion in the news asking if non religious people could have moral values?

Having seen what religious people have done over the years, my question is do religious people know what morals are?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the non-proliferation treaty which annoys me the most. I really thought that the nuclear-armed countries guaranteed the safety of signatories at least as far as nuclear attack was concerned. In particular, the US would protect Australia.

Alas, I now think this is not the case. Well that explains why we have taken part in every stupid war the US has embarked on...  we feel the need to stay their best mates.

Personally, I would use Roxby Downs uranium to make A bombs which would be delivered by Jabiru-looking drones guided by old mechanical stuff which would be immune to electronic counter-measures.

With a few thousand of these in store, we could get rid of much of our military and save millions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dax said:

The animal kingdom for want of a better word, as humans are animals, works on an ethical basis of what is good and reasonably peaceful for all. We see this in every aspect of non human life, where the majority only kill or take what they need to survive and never for the thrill or fun of the kill. The rest of the time, they live peaceably with each other.

 

Humans kill, enslave and abuse other life, purely for the joy of the kill and for greed and gluttonous reasons. That's why they are always at war, they live by constructed ideological moral codes, not the ethical ones we see in the natural world.

@Yenn dealt with the meaning of morals and ethics and how they are intertwined. In fact, you can't have ethics without morals; it's impossible; and @old man emu dealt with the individual v. collective set of morals and ethics. So, I won't repeat it.

 

However, this little article may interest you that humans are among at least 11 other wild animals that kill for pleasure (and Orcas have also been observed torturing their prey.. and yes, returning some seal pups to shore after "playing" with them). We enslave because we have the capacity to do so. https://wildlifeinformer.com/animals-that-kill-for-fun/

 

I, too, have worked in the criminal world for a very short time; dealt mainly with 2 slow-burning murder cases, where long duration battered and mentally abused wives ended up breaking and killing their husband. They felt victimised by their husbands and by the system which the for some reason found very difficult to access for support, mainly through fear of what their husbands would do if they found out. In one case, it would have appeared that her life would definitely be in danger if he found out, but both had been both physically and mentally abused during many years (one was 15, the other was 8 or 9); so they were in a position where they couldn't really function properly to seek the support they needed.

 

In order to escape a life or torture, each snapped (must have been something in the air that month as it was within the same month). One was very grizzly; the other "clean" (well as clean as they could be. Was it moral (or ethical)?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dax is, I think, trying to differentiate between two facets of behaviour, by categorizing "morals" as being a fundamentally different set of rules, from "ethics".

He posits that "morals" are moulded more by societal (ideological) need to control. And that "ethics" are more aligned with logical sense of "fair play".

 

Regardless of the dictionary definitions of the terms (which some are taking issue with) , I agree that there are many examples in our society, of irrational and unfair behaviour that are weirdly accepted as being "moral" in spite of being totally unfair.

 

For instance, I consider that the act of torturing anybody is immoral. But most religions (ideologies) at some stage make it "moral" or "ethical" to kill and torture a human that has a different ideology. Such a societal expectation is definitely not fair play in a logical, fair society. But at the time it's done, society accepts and even promotes cruelty to fellow man, as being not only morally right, but the acts of heroes.

 

I think that's the point Dax is making.

10 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greatest single problem with America is that is is run by default, by corporations and corporate heads. These people can claim to be God-fearing, religious, and morally upright people, but in reality, they have no morals or ethics when it comes to the crunch, because they only live for, and worship, money and wealth, and the unstoppable power that comes with enormous wealth. 

 

I always have a laugh at corporations claiming they have ethics and morals training. The higher up their position in a company or corporation, the less likely they are to have any morals or ethics, when it comes to the crunch.

I mean to say, imagine the sheer amount of time, effort, and funding that goes into making weapons that have no other use than to kill people mercilessly on a huge scale. I can't even imagine the moral compass of someone who does this for a living?

Yet we have Americans doing this sort of work daily, and claiming to be the finest, upstanding Christians? Haven't they ever read the 5th Commandment?

 

This is the simple reason why the Bible says peace will never reign on Earth until the last weapon is turned into a plowshare, and the reason why Jesus Christ displayed his only bout of anger when he overturned the money changers tables in the Temple. JC knew that the money changers worshipped only money, and nothing else mattered - and their ethics and morals were centred purely around ripping money off weaker people, so they could become very rich.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not only big business chiefs that lack morals. Just look at our government. They demonstrate lack of morals all the time and not only in interpersonal relationships, such as concerning Brittany Higgins.

Just one example. The government wants everyone to take the Astra Zenica shots, but the medical experts say it is not approved for the under sixties.

Our PM then suggests that we go to our doctor who will advise us. So far so good, if the doctor thinks it safe he could say so. Then the PM says he will absolve the doctor if the advice given was incorrect. Can you see what I see here. It is an immoral move to get someone to say what they know is not correct.

  • Informative 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/09/2021 at 12:52 PM, Yenn said:

Have a look at the dictionary meanings of ethical and moral and I think you will find they are intertwined in each other.

I recently saw an article by a proponent of religion in the news asking if non religious people could have moral values?

Having seen what religious people have done over the years, my question is do religious people know what morals are?

That depends on which dictionary you are reading.

 

"A person’s idea of morals tends to be shaped by their surrounding environment (and sometimes their belief system). Moral values shape a person’s ideas about right and wrong."

 

"An ethical code doesn’t have to be moral. It’s just a set of rules for people to follow."

 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/

 

"The word Morals is derived from a Greek word “Mos” which means custom. On the other hand, if we talk about Ethics, it is also derived from a Greek word “Ethikos” which means character. Put simply, morals are the customs established by group of individuals whereas ethics defines the character of an individual."

 

https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-morals-and-ethics.html

 

The above is the closest to what I see morals and ethics as representing, not they are one and the same. That's way to ideological for me, as it seems to represent an attempt to dismiss the ethical actions we see within most of the animal kingdom. It's an ideologues way of justifying their abuse of life and shutting the door to reality.

 

The USA runs on religious moral codes, which mean they can change them to suit themselves when they feel like it and being trapped in delusion, they refuse to see the truth of their actions round the planet. The USA hasn't won a war they've entered into since WW2, no matter the might of their war machine, they have lost every time and the same goes for all warring nations, including Aus.

 

ANZUS is a double edged sword, on one hand it seems to offer us nuclear protection and on the other hand it pushes us into other peoples conflicts. If we had a decent government, we'd be an independent neutral country, but heavily armed for defence only and to help protect our neighbours from aggressive societies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dax said:

If we had a decent government, we'd be an independent neutral country, but heavily armed for defence only and to help protect our neighbours from aggressive societies.

I agree with this statement almost completely. However my agreement would be complete if it was "and to help our neighbours". Once we start getting involved in other peoples' arguments we lose our neutrality and help destroy peace.

 

In my life governments have scared me by proposing the "Domino Effect" of Communism spreading through Malaya and Vietnam; the danger of an Indonesian invasion; Middle Eastern fundamentalism, and now Chinese expansionism. If we kept our noses out of these matters we might be able to live a quiet, peaceful life like the New Zealanders do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I agree with this statement almost completely. However my agreement would be complete if it was "and to help our neighbours". Once we start getting involved in other peoples' arguments we lose our neutrality and help destroy peace.

 

In my life governments have scared me by proposing the "Domino Effect" of Communism spreading through Malaya and Vietnam; the danger of an Indonesian invasion; Middle Eastern fundamentalism, and now Chinese expansionism. If we kept our noses out of these matters we might be able to live a quiet, peaceful life like the New Zealanders do

I agree to a point, we have to help countries like PNG, Indonesia, Timor, NZ and Sth pacific nations, if not we could end up with them as hosts to societies hostile towards us. As for anywhere else, I agree we should keep out of it completely. By the way NZ had troops in Afghanistan for the last 20 years, they also had troops in the middle east and were involved with the campaigns we were involved with way back then.

 

During the mid 1960's, was part of a naval dive team operating throughout Sth Asia, including the Phillipines and Thailand. Very very few know what went on in that situation and it wasn't until 35 years after that our government admitted we were there and that only happened because the Malay government issued some involved with medals, including me. Then our government suddenly recognised our involvement and issued medals, offered pensions, gold cards and support. Bit late then as we went through a very long time with no one believing us as to what we did and government denying out involvement, the mental strain was tremendous. That experience showed me why we need to help protect our neighbours, without asking for anything in return. It just makes good sense for such an advanced country as ours, to show our neighbours that our allegiance is within our area and not elsewhere and we will help them if they need it. 

 

The biggest threat to Aus at present is from economic and sociological collapse coming from the regions to our nth and the following refugees flood, and or chinese deciding they need our resources. The logistics required for the chinese to invade us are horrendous and would be almost impossible if we had a conventional and comprehensive missile umbrella. Now we have to rely upon the USA to provide that umbrella from the other side of the planet.

 

With fingers crossed, doubt there will be a nuclear war, there may be one of two go off, but every country realises that to use nuclear weapons, in the end will destroy their own country. If not with bombs, but fall out.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...