Hurricane Katrina and Singapore

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Firstly I wasn't being talmudical, nor was I engaging in pilpul or even Jesuitical casuistry. Clearly Tingkai wasn't aware of Indonesia's aggression against Singapore, then attempted a pointless saveface.

Now what kind of threat might Indonesia pose to Singapore ?

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/

Confined to a small citystate, part of whose water supply is derived from another nation.

Indonesia on the other hand has a population of:

http://www.expat.or.id/info/overview.html

Indonesia has a corrupt politically minded military, which has seen combat experience against Singapore and Malaya (oh, sorry, Malaysia...) Irian Jaya and East Timor- as well as Indonesia's own citizens.

Indonesia has seen large scale massacres of Indonesian civilians of ethnic Chinese descent :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4312805.stm

There were significant anti-Chinese riots in 1998 too, resulting in extensive looting, property damage, rapes and murders.

Singapore has an ethnic Chinese majority.

Indonesia has shown a blatant disregard for the rule of law, both internally and externally, in its illegal annexation of Irian Jaya and East Timor and suppression of dissident movements.

Perhaps having experienced Indonesia's neighbourliness already, Singapore is simply acting in its own best interests, as the Singaporean military's website points out:



http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/abo...ce_policy.html

except for timor and indonesias internal problems, all of that is 40 years old. Indonesia has recongbized singapore for 40 year, IIIUC. Singapore is actually part of a regional Bloc with Indonesia, ASEAN. IIUC Singapore is still part of a 5 power defense pact with Oz, NZ, Malaysia and UK (or did that lapse?) Indoniesia is a democracy, that has shown no expansinonist tendencies in recent years. In the event of agreesion by Indoniesai against Singapore, Singapoer could expect the support of the entire world - most immediately the support of Australia, likely with the backing of the US.


Taiwan, OTOH, faces almost as unfavorbale a demographic balance. Against an authoritarian regims, that has proclaimed the illegitimacy of the sate on Taiwan. That regualry holds exercises to plan the invasion of Taiwan. That considers sale of arms to Taiwan an aggressive act, even as it expands its own arms. And Taiwan, if attackd can expect most of the world to look on with apathy.

And yet Taiwan has built a more democractic system than Singapore.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Indonesia has a corrupt politically minded military

very similar in that respect to the military that aspires to invade Taiwan - well maybe the PLA is less corrupt, not sure what comfort that is in Taiwan.

, which has seen combat experience against Singapore and Malaya (oh, sorry, Malaysia...)

Over 40 years ago.

Irian Jaya and East Timor- as well as Indonesia's own citizens.

See the PLA, in Tibet, at Tiananemn, etc

Indonesia has seen large scale massacres of Indonesian civilians of ethnic Chinese descent :

40 years ago.

There were significant anti-Chinese riots in 1998 too, resulting in extensive looting, property damage, rapes and murders.

Following whcih the military govt fell.

Indonesia has shown a blatant disregard for the rule of law, both internally and externally, in its illegal annexation of Irian Jaya

over 40 yeara ago, from a colonial power

and East Timor

30 years ago, and also from a colonial power.(not that that makes it right, but it makes the precedent inapplicable)

and suppression of dissident movements.

supremely ironic, since this is supposed to trouble SINGAPORE.

Perhaps having experienced Indonesia's neighbourliness already, Singapore is simply acting in its own best interests, as the Singaporean military's website points out:

The question is not does Singapore need to be armed, but does it need to be a quasiauthoritarian state. Taiwan, which has a far worse security threat, shows the opposite.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


except for timor and indonesias internal problems, all of that is 40 years old.

You should refresh your memory with what Indonesia is capable of in attacking a territory not its own- or even when the said territory happens to disagree with Indonesia's political elite.

Are we meant to believe that time is the great healer, and all is forgiven ? I think not.

I can think of one regime where a politically minded military attempted to save face by attacking a small vulnerable group of islands....

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, does that ever sound familiar...

Indeed.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by molly bloom

, which has seen combat experience against Singapore and Malaya (oh, sorry, Malaysia...)

Over 40 years ago.

More and more I see this as irrelevant- North Viet Nam and China were once allies, and then in the late 1970s had a short border war.

The notion that just because Indonesia's attack on Singapore's sovereignty happened in 1965 it won't or can't happen again is absurd; since that date Indonesia went on to occupy two more ex-colonies, Dutch West Papua (Irian Jaya) and Portuguese East Timor.

Should the peoples of those territories in 1969 and 1975 have trusted to the good will of Indonesia's armed forces and corrupt politicians ? Experience shows not.

How about East Timor in 1998- a bare 7 years ago ?

I like the way you say:

In the event of agreesion by Indoniesai against Singapore, Singapoer could expect the support of the entire world

forgive me if I recall a little conflict in the South Atlantic called the Falklands War. How special was the 'special relationship' between the United States and the United Kingdom then ?

If you're seriously comparing the Chinese suppression of the Tiananmen Square demonstration with the anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia, or the casualties inflicted in the invasion of East Timor, you need a reality check.

The death toll in East Timor has been estimated (in comparative terms per head of population) to equal that of the invasion of Russia in WWII.

Over a quarter of a million ethnic Chinese are estimated to have been killed in Indonesia's rioting in 1965.

Riots which reoccurred in 1998.

Seems to me Indonesia's ethnic Chinese are convenient and easy scapegoats.

supremely ironic, since this is supposed to trouble SINGAPORE.

There's nothing ironic about it- if Indonesia can suppress 'indigenous'movements in the way it can and did in Aceh, South Molucca, and occupied East Timor, it's even more reason for Singapore to be on its guard given the proximity of the two nations.

Indonesia's unity is a fragile thing- it is a relatively recent construct, with fissiparous tendencies, and a political-military elite with a tendency to condone human rights abuses and invade sovereign territories.

What might be more distracting for a corrupt regime, with a poorly paid army facing domestic troubles, than a short headline grabbing war against a relatively vulnerable neighbour, that doesn't have the safety of mountain rainforests to shelter resistance movements ?

And Taiwan, if attackd can expect most of the world to look on with apathy.

I look forward to you proving this assertion.

And when exactly was the last Communist Chinese invasion of Taiwan ? Or the last North Korean invasion of South Korea ?

1998 ? 1975 ? 1969 ? 1965 ?


Look, I can play the pick a date game, too!

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

More and more I see this as irrelevant- North Viet Nam and China were once allies, and then in the late 1970s had a short border war.

The notion that just because Indonesia's attack on Singapore's sovereignty happened in 1965 it won't or can't happen again is absurd;

True the past cant predict the present. Again I didnt call on Singapore to disarm. I questioned the justification for the quasiauthoritarian state.

since that date Indonesia went on to occupy two more ex-colonies, Dutch West Papua (Irian Jaya) and Portuguese East Timor.

Should the peoples of those territories in 1969 and 1975 have trusted to the good will of Indonesia's armed forces and corrupt politicians ? Experience shows not.

when did i suggest singapore should trust to Indonesias good will?

forgive me if I recall a little conflict in the South Atlantic called the Falklands War. How special was the 'special relationship' between the United States and the United Kingdom then ?

special enough for the US to support the UK, at the expense of our relationships in Latin America. We perhaps didnt do much - UK wasnt fighting for survival against a giant, as Singapore or Taiwan would be, but for a few islands, over which it had a questionable claim, against a lesser power.

If you're seriously comparing the Chinese suppression of the Tiananmen Square demonstration with the anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia, or the casualties inflicted in the invasion of East Timor, you need a reality check.

The death toll in East Timor has been estimated (in comparative terms per head of population) to equal that of the invasion of Russia in WWII.

Over a quarter of a million ethnic Chinese are estimated to have been killed in Indonesia's rioting in 1965.

Riots which reoccurred in 1998.

Seems to me Indonesia's ethnic Chinese are convenient and easy scapegoats.

the riots in 1998 were not supported by the govt, IIRC. Clearly China has been more stable recently than Indonesia. I did not refer to chinas history during the cultural revolution, great leap forward or the initial victory of the PLA as i diditt want this to become a general deabte about China.

There's nothing ironic about it- if Indonesia can suppress 'indigenous'movements in the way it can and did in Aceh, South Molucca, and occupied East Timor, it's even more reason for Singapore to be on its guard given the proximity of the two nations.

Its ironic cause Singapore also suppresses dissident movements, IIUC.

As for Singapores safety, its provided by the same thing that protects Taiwan - the sea, and allies with superior navies.

And when exactly was the last Communist Chinese invasion of Taiwan ?

When was the last invasion of Singapore by Indonesia?

China didnt have the military ability to attack Taiwan any time in the '50s or 60s. by the 70s China was focucsed on the USSR, and looked to the US as a defacto ally. Since 1991 China has threatened Taiwan more than once. During THE SAME PERIOD Indonesia has NOT threatened Singapore.

Taiwans govt is considered unlawful by the PRC. Singapore is recongized by Indonesia (unlike east timor or West New Guinea) Singapore is recognizes by nations around the world - Taiwan is not. There is little doubt that the world would not allow Indonesian aggresion against Singapore to stand, as it didnt allow Iraqi aggression against Kuwiat to stand. Taiwan, if attacked, can look for support to the US, and maybe Japan.

and does all this mean Singopore should disarm???NO,no, no. It does mean Singapore is much less besieged than Taiwan, and yet is less democratic

[lord of the mark]

The navy that threatens SIngapore

"Indonesian politician backs province's plan to buy the navy a warship

JAKARTA (AFP) Sep 03, 2003
A leading politician on Wednesday backed plans by an Indonesian province to buy a warship for the cash-strapped navy.
"If the provincial government has some surplus budget, why not? The fact is that the Indonesian navy still has very limited equipment," said parliament speaker Akbar Tanjung.

Riau on Sumatra island, one of Indonesia's wealthiest provinces, has announced plans to buy a patrol boat to help the navy safeguard its territorial waters from piracy and smuggling.

Wealthy businessmen sometimes buy patrol cars for the equally cash-strapped police force but the idea of buying a warship has raised eyebrows.

Tanjung, quoted by Antara news agency, was speaking during a visit to the new province of Bangka-Belitung off Sumatra -- which has also expressed interest in buying a patrol boat for the navy.

Rear Admiral Mualimin Santoso, commander of the Navy's Western Fleet, welcomed the move by Riau, which will pay 12.8 billion rupiah (1.5 million dollars) for the vessel.

"The ship will not remain in the ownership of the provincial government but will belong to and will be operated by the TNI (armed forces)," he said.

The home affairs ministry spokesman said there was no problem with the arrangement as long as the purchase was approved by the defence ministry and would be managed by the defence department.

Last year navy chief Admiral Bernard Kent Sondakh lamented that his 113-ship fleet can sail but not fight because of ageing engines or weaponry. Only eight of the ships are less than a decade old, he said."

[lord of the mark]

"Singapore
I. Current National Security Situation
Strategically, Singapore is an economic link between the industrial and developing
countries of East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. As a small nation-state of about 3
million people heavily dependent on trade,1 Singapore’s national security is not threatened
as much from a single country, but from the disruption of commerce. Singapore’s external
trade is more than triple its GDP. The possibility of a war spilling over into Singapore’s
SLOCs and territory is a concern, as well as the paramilitary operations of transnational or
sub national groupings.
Singapore views the Asian-Pacific region as a dynamic one with many uncertainties. The
relationships between the United States, China, and Japan are key, and there are many
unresolved disputes in Korea, the Spratly’s, and South Asia. Russia and India also
influence the security environment.2 However Singapore’s proximate security concerns
stem from the potential for ethnic and cultural strife in neighboring countries, excessive
nationalism, and dependence on Malaysia for water and gas.3 There is also increased
piracy and illegal immigration in the adjacent waters, turmoil in Malaysia, and the distinct
possibility that internal conflict in Indonesia could eventually upset the ASEAN security
balance.4
Singapore promotes its security concerns as active members of the Association of South-
East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA). The
FPDA nations (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK) strive for high
interoperability of forces, tested via frequent exercises. Additionally, the evolution of the
ASEAN Regional Forum has contributed to regional security confidence.5
Military requirements
Should conflict arise, Singapore geographically has little strategic depth within which to
defend. The lack of depth also decreases warning time. The result is a strategy based on
air, naval, and amphibious forces that are technologically superior when compared with
regional potential adversaries.6 A doctrine of forward defense, preemptive strike
(“preventive attack”), and strategic mobility is invoked to keep the battlefield away from
the economic assets that are Singapore’s lifeline.7 She has the best air-strike capability in
southeast Asia, and leads the region in tactical UAVs.8 She also intends to create the most
sophisticated C3I system in the region.9
Singapore’s defense philosophy is to rely mostly on conscripts and reservists, creating a
highly trained force with technically advanced weaponry. Technology is exploited to
provide the necessary advanced training. There is a deterrent quality associated with
having the best-trained and equipped force in southeast Asia, which is enhanced by
Singapore’s efforts to create friendly defense relationships in the region.
Singapore intends to develop its armed forces to “build on its strengths to become a first
class armed force that is able to fulfill a variety of roles and missions.”10 The three
branches of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) also strive for a high degree of tri-service
integration.
Total security
In spite of the consistent priorities given to the development of improved defense
capabilities, Singapore’s overall national security strategy is one of “Total Security.” This
approach recognizes that there are several different aspects of national strength— political,
diplomatic, economic, sociological, and psychological— that are the foundations for the
security of a nation. Hence the importance of economic power, internal stability, national
consensus, international regional responsibilities, and international relations, as well as
military power.11 Singapore policy explicitly links issues and actions in one area to those
of another. This approach is one of the factors that has contributed to the success to date of
Singapore’s armament strategy and defense industrial policy. She has created a balanced
system of acquisitions, logistics, and local defense industrial capability within the context
of a long-term plan designed to counter perceived threats.
Collaborative strategy
Singapore also takes a collaborative approach to her security problems. She has worked to
develop good regional-balancing relationships with China, the United States and Japan. To
provide access to advanced training facilities, she has developed relationships with
Taiwan, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Brunei, Indonesia, Britain, Bangladesh, Malaysia,
Thailand, Brunei, and Myanmar. To provide access to technology, she has developed
relationships with Sweden, the United States, Russia, France, Israel, Australia, and
Germany.12
Singapore has a special economic and military relationship with the U.S. Although
technically non-aligned, Singapore has always welcomed U.S. presence in the region and
was the only country to offer facilities to the U.S. military when they left the Philippines.

[lord of the mark]

Falklands/Malvinas


"Haig briefly (April 8–April 30) headed a "shuttle diplomacy" mission between London and Buenos Aires, but at the end of the month Reagan blamed Argentina for the failure of the mediation, declared U.S. support for Britain, and announced the imposition of economic sanctions against Argentina.

In an infamous episode in June, Kirkpatrick cast a second veto of a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, then announced minutes later that she had received instructions to abstain. The situation was blamed on a delay in communications, but perceived by many as part of an ongoing power struggle between Haig and Kirkpatrick.


...



A US preoccupation with the Soviet Union and communism and the thought Britain could handle the matter on its own may have factored into this view as well, although assessments of this theory vary. In the broader sense of the Cold War, with the performance of UK forces watched closely by the Soviet Union, it was worthwhile for the UK to handle without assistance a conflict minor in scale compared to an all-out NATO vs. Warsaw Pact war. Regardless, American non-interference was vital to the U.S.-British relationship. Ascension Island, a UK possession, was on lease to the Americans, and the British needed to resume its use as a relay point and air base. The most decisive American contribution was AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles of the latest L model (these missiles were much more deadly than older models of the Sidewinder), spy satellites and intelligence information.

There were also rumours, later expanded upon by Weinberger, which spoke of lending an aircraft carrier, although this was not public knowledge at the time. It is worth noting that both Weinberger and Reagan would go on to receive honorary knighthoods, the honour of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, from Queen Elizabeth II. American critics of the U.S. role claimed that, by failing to side with Argentina, the U.S. violated its own Monroe Doctrine (even though an American nation, Argentina, attacked the possession of an existing European power, Britain, that predated the Doctrine).

In September 2001, Mexican president Vicente Fox would cite the conflict as proof of the failure of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance."

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

but for a few islands, over which it had a questionable claim, against a lesser power.


During THE SAME PERIOD Indonesia has NOT threatened Singapore.

Oh, you're right- it just invaded two neighbouring non-Singaporean ex-colonies, inflicted a massive loss of life, and brutally attacked its own citizenry. Those somewhat salient points must make all of Singapore's citizens sleep easy at night.

As for the Falklands War, before you start repeating Argentinean (or Jeane Kirkpatrician remarks) about 'questionable claims' do some research on the subject- especially about American reluctance to do anything substantial to free the citizens of the territory of one of its oldest allies from an illegal occupying military from a state with an appalling human rights record.

Wow, sounds almost like Indonesia, but of course it's not- it's Argentina.

I take it you're aware that Indonesia's invasions of West Papua and East Timor were committed with if not the active support, then certainly the tacit support and agreement of the United States ?

Singapore is recognizes by nations around the world - Taiwan is not.

Are you sure ? Don't want to change your mind on that score ?

In their letter, a dozen of Taiwan's allies from Africa, the Caribbean, Central America and the South Pacific said Taiwan's democratically elected government "is the sole legitimate one that can actually represent the interests and wishes of the people of Taiwan in the United Nations."

http://taiwansecurity.org/AP/AP-081000.htm

and just in case you think they're only small fry:

Some, such as Australia, will be under pressure from Taiwan's major real ally the United States, to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of war. These are the sorts of countries Taiwan should cultivate, not the mendicants.

http://taiwansecurity.org/CP/2005/CP-070205.htm

Singapore's defence forces, by the way, train with Taiwan's.

and does all this mean Singopore should disarm???

Disarm what, exactly ?

First, as a young nation with a small population, we cannot afford to maintain a regular armed forces.

Now if you're going to make comparisons:

It does mean Singapore is much less besieged than Taiwan, and yet is less democratic

be prepared to prove them.

Less democratic ? In what way ?

I had thought Singapore's electoral system was one person one vote ? Are you suggesting it isn't ?

I agree with Mr Ho that elections conducted in Singapore are honest and voting is secret.

http://www.wp.org.sg/news/press_releases/20020925_safeguards.htm

The Workers' Party of Singapore think otherwise.

the riots in 1998 were not supported by the govt,

Oh please.

General Wiranto conceded in August that troops were "involved" in the riots.

Reuters 03-NOV-98

Its ironic cause Singapore also suppresses dissident movements, IIUC.

Legal action tends to be somewhat less lethal than bullets, mass rape, murder, genocide, et cetera. Unless you're suggesting that Singaporean 'dissidents' (and who did you have in mind ?) have disappeared in the same way as Indonesian ones in Aceh, West Papua, the Moluccas and East Timor.

Really, you're not even comparing like with like, here.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Oh, you're right- it just invaded two neighbouring non-Singaporean ex-colonies, inflicted a massive loss of life, and brutally attacked its own citizenry. Those somewhat salient points must make all of Singapore's citizens sleep easy at night.

Singapore isnt a colony - - its an independent sovereign state recognized by Indonesia. West NG and East Timor are NOT precedents, no matter how many times you mention them.

As for the Falklands War, before you start repeating Argentinean (or Jeane Kirkpatrician remarks) about 'questionable claims' do some research on the subject

I followed it way back in the 80s, and found that there was something to both sides POV.

- especially about American reluctance to do anything substantial to free the citizens of the territory of one of its oldest allies from an illegal occupying military from a state with an appalling human rights record.

We ended up supporting the UK. But no, the UK itself was not threatened, just a distant colony. WE didnt go twar againt Argentina - a stance shared not only with all the EU states, but also with Canada and Australia. .

Wow, sounds almost like Indonesia, but of course it's not- it's Argentina.

Every nation in the world recognizes the independence of Singapore - did every nation in the world recognize UK Sovereignty over the Falklands?

I take it you're aware that Indonesia's invasions of West Papua and East Timor were committed with if not the active support, then certainly the tacit support and agreement of the United States ?

Im not going to review the reasons for the US relationshop with Indonesia. I cannot recall ANY time during the cold war when the govt of Singapore suggested the US should not maintain ties with anticommunist authoritarian regimes.

And what does this have to do with the justification for the authoritarian regime in SIngapore? Or is all this about the US, as usual?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Or is all this about the US, as usual?

If you want to play stupid games, go ahead.


If you expect a civil reply from me to this post or any other of yours, then don't start with the 'anti-U.S.' rhetoric , because it's untrue, inaccurate, and unworthy of you.

I don't have to prove how much I like the United States or aspects of its culture, or indeed Americans, because I've never been a knee-jerk America-hater, and I defy you to prove that assertion, which you seem to be so keen on making.

I may dislike Goerge Bush Jr., and the current government, and right evangelical Christianity in its American incarnation, but as far as I know, none of those have the claim to be America, or representative of ALL Americans.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

http://taiwansecurity.org/AP/AP-081000.htm

and just in case you think they're only small fry:

http://taiwansecurity.org/CP/2005/CP-070205.htm

Lets see, Youve got an article about such mighty states as Tuvalu, and another that reminds all that the US is Taiwans ally, and the US MIGHT pressure Australia to help out.

Of coures the US does not guarantee Taiwan - we dont even recognize them - but im sure being recognized by Tuvalu helps them to sleep well at night.


Disarm what, exactly ?

LOTM - uh, their military? what else might we be talking aout here



Less democratic ? In what way ?

I had thought Singapore's electoral system was one person one vote ? Are you suggesting it isn't ?


LOTM - if you wanted to debate Singapores system, you were free to do so, back when people with an interest in it, and knowledge of it,were still paying attention.

Instead you dove into an arguement about whether the threat from Indoneisa justiffied it. Pray tell, if Singapore is a democracy, why does one need to point to the indonesian threat to justify it? What exactly did you think this debate was about?

Legal action tends to be somewhat less lethal than bullets, mass rape, murder, genocide, et cetera. Unless you're suggesting that Singaporean 'dissidents' (and who did you have in mind ?) have disappeared in the same way as Indonesian ones in Aceh, West Papua, the Moluccas and East Timor.

I was responding to your simple statement of "suppressing dissidents"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



If you want to play stupid games, go ahead.


If you expect a civil reply from me to this post or any other of yours, then don't start with the 'anti-U.S.' rhetoric , because it's untrue, inaccurate, and unworthy of you.

I don't have to prove how much I like the United States or aspects of its culture, or indeed Americans, because I've never been a knee-jerk America-hater, and I defy you to prove that assertion, which you seem to be so keen on making.

I may dislike Goerge Bush Jr., and the current government, and right evangelical Christianity in its American incarnation, but as far as I know, none of those have the claim to be America, or representative of ALL Americans.

You are aware that US support for Indonesia predated George Bushs preidency? That in 1965 Lyndon Johnso was president? In 1975 Gerald Ford was?


I saw a discussion of SINGAPORE, into which were introduced red herrings about US tolerance for the Indonesian invasion of East Timor (an issue that has been a favorite of Noam Chomsky, and was used by him to argue against intervention in Kosovo) and a distortion of the US position on the Falklands.

Im sorry if i misinterpretated, but your posts read very much like all US foreign policy since 1945 are a hot button issue for you, and you see many other apparenttly unrelated things through that lens. Note this has nothing do with your opinion of American culture, or of individual Americans.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im sorry if i misinterpretated, but your posts read very much like all US foreign policy since 1945 are a hot button issue for you, and you see many other apparenttly unrelated things through that lens. Note this has nothing do with your opinion of American culture, or of individual Americans.

Horse****, frankly.

You seem to have a problem with other people equating the American right wing Christianity with the Taleban- or comparing life under George Bush with life in Iran.

Neither of those are complaints or comparisons I've made. Yet you have chosen fit to brand me as a knee-jerk anti-American, which I'm self-evidently not.

So once and for all, leave off the 'anti- U.S.' rhetoric, because it's stale, repetitive, and inaccurate- and as obvious a ploy as some untutored Leftist noob calling everyone 'Fascist' at the top of their voice.

Lets see, Youve got an article about such mighty states as Tuvalu, and another that reminds all that the US is Taiwans ally, and the US MIGHT pressure Australia to help out.

Really ? Doesn't my post also go on to say this:

...a dozen of Taiwan's allies from Africa, the Caribbean, Central America and the South Pacific

and didn't yours say this:

Singapore is recognizes by nations around the world - Taiwan is not.

Looks like you were incorrect in your assumption, to me.

Of coures the US does not guarantee Taiwan - we dont even recognize them - but im sure being recognized by Tuvalu helps them to sleep well at night.

http://www.tecro.org/dev/contents/leads.php?ID=102

Doesn't look like Taiwan is short of American friends, does it ? Is the Bush administration leaving you out of the loop ?

President Bush signaled a shift in this approach early in his term when, in an interview with ABC, he committed the United States to "whatever it took" to help Taiwan defend itself.

Although Bush administration officials said at the time that U.S. policy had not changed -- and Bush reiterated the ambiguous stance during a trip to Beijing in February -- administration officials acknowledge a shift.

"Our ambiguity on Taiwan has become less ambiguous," a senior administration official said.

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/taiwanfondness.htm

LOTM - if you wanted to debate Singapores system, you were free to do so, back when people with an interest in it, and knowledge of it,were still paying attention.

I'm sorry, but didn't you say:

...Singapore... is less democratic... than Taiwan

It only seems fair that if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you back them up with facts. I simply pointed out with the aid of the website of the Singaporean Workers' Party, the principle of one person one vote still appears to adhere in Singapore.

I saw a discussion of SINGAPORE, into which were introduced red herrings about US tolerance for the Indonesian invasion of East Timor

There're no red herrings, unless you're being particularly obtuse, or wilfully or accidentally misinterpreting what I write- which you've done on occasion in the past.

On both occasions when Indonesia invaded and occupied territory not its own (1969 and 1975) the foreign policy of the United States dictated that it look the other way and in fact actively encourage the illegal annexation of both West Papua and East Timor.

And yet, the same lack of concern for human rights did not extend to the arena of the Viet Nam War, did it ? North Viet Nam was bad- Indonesia was good.

You are aware that US support for Indonesia predated George Bushs preidency? That in 1965 Lyndon Johnso was president? In 1975 Gerald Ford was?

Yeah, and ? Henry Kissinger was around in 1969 and 1975- when West Papua and East Timor were invaded.

Clearly, no one can predict what might be dictating U.S. foreign policy in the future- Indonesia's oil reserves perhaps ?

It seems to me that you've been arguing against a position I haven't held, with in many instances a combination of bluster and a blatant disregard for facts.

You keep harping on about how East Timor and West Papua aren't a precedent for putative Indonesian attacks on Singapore- they don't have to be exact comparisons, or parallels.

They clearly indicate Indonesia has a history of attacking its neighbours (which of course Singpapore and Malaysia already know from bitter experience) and of disregarding international law and human rights.

Instead you dove into an arguement about whether the threat from Indoneisa justiffied it

I did nothing of the sort- I provided a useful correction to these claims:

My point is just that Singapore does not face any enemies, unlike South Korea and Taiwan.

and this one:

As far as I know, Malaysia has never invaded or threatened to invade Singapore, and neither has Indonesia.

Then when I make a comparison about a beleaguered military dictatorship, with an atrocious human rights record, invading island territory not its own, occupied by a distinct ethnic grouping with their own different culture and language, you decide that it's time to waffle on about the supposed legality of the Argentinean claims to the Falklands, rather than see the parallel I intended.

Don't pick arguments with me simply for the sake of doing so and if you're going to, use more in the way of fact, and less in the way of bluster and irrelevant diversions and comparisons.