Maybe the U.S.A. should just tax the rest of the world.

[Andrew D]

After all, the U.S.A. holds together the entire international economy. Maybe it's about time that we get something -- or something more -- for our efforts.

International shipping, the lifeblood of the international economy, is, by historical standards, astonishingly safe. And it is astonishingly safe for one principal reason: The U.S.A. spends boatloads (ha, ha) of money keeping it that way.

On the high seas, the U.S.A. is God. Nominally, the high seas belong to everyone. In reality, we own them. The combined navies of the rest of the world wouldn't last a week against the U.S. navy in high-seas combat.

Without the U.S. navy, international shipping would be about as safe today as it was in the eighteenth century. Why should the U.S. keep paying everyone else's bills?

[Rick]

Not to mention the money dropped by sailors at ports of call and the purchase of perishables.

Millions in a span of 4 to 5 days...

[rubato]

As illiterate Somali Pirates in skiffs with outboard motors and half-naked brigands in the Sunda Straits prove on a weekly basis we are not all that effective in policing the oceans.

Not that we couldn't be, if we wanted to.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

I think you'll find that it is in fact Britannia which rules the waves...

[rubato]

Well she's had a LOT of practice:



But if you mean ocean waves you were preyed on at will be the Germans in 2 world wars (and the Japanese in 1) until the US Navy rescued you..

yrs,
rubato

[Rick]

Well she's had a LOT of practice:

That there was funny...

[Guinevere]

I think you'll find that it is in fact Britannia which rules the waves...

Perhaps correct when the song was written in 1740, pretty much obsolete within 100 years, after being taken down by those pesky Yanks, who demonstrated exactly what it meant to "flourish great and free" after "tyrants f[e]ll."

[Andrew D]

The U.S. is far more effective at protecting the high seas -- and far more benign in doing so -- than any other superpower ever has been. No, the U.S. has not been perfect at it, but we are still far and away better at it than anyone else has ever been.

[The Hen]

Send the bill, and move your military off our land or we will start sending you requests for rent.

[Andrew D]

Fine. Let's have the U.S. -- which does not (or, at least as of this past November, according to Australia's Defence Minister, did not) actually have any military bases in Australia -- stop rotating troops through Australia.

Oh, wait.

Australia wants U.S. forces to keep coming to Australia. In fact, both the governing party and the principal opposition were behind an arrangement to increase U.S. access to Australian military bases:

THE federal government has reaffirmed plans to step up joint training and military exercises with the US but ruled out the establishment of a Marine Corps base in Australia.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and US President Barack Obama and are expected to unveil details for greater cooperation between their two countries' forces when the American leader visits next week.

* * *

Defence Minister Stephen Smith today dismissed talk Mr Obama would announce an increased rotation of US marine forces through Darwin, a gateway to Asia, as part of a planned permanent new military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

"There are no United States bases in Australia and no proposal for such bases," Mr Smith said in a statement.

Australia is a crucial link in the Pentagon's so-called global force posture review, which Mr Smith said will lead to an expansion of joint training and exercises in Australia.

* * *

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston said the coalition supported enhanced US access to Australian military bases.

"The US is the bedrock of global security and a major force for stability in the Asia-Pacific region," the senator said.

Recent AUSMIN talks between Australian and US defence and foreign affairs ministers agreed to a strengthened military relationship.

If you really want U.S. troops off of Australian soil, the most efficacious way of achieving that result might be persuading your fellow Australians to agree with you.

[Gob]

Are you going to start the "tax the world" campaign before or after the "walk around nude" campaign?

You're going to be a very busy boy whichever you choose.

[dales]

The surrounding lands paid tribute to the Roman Empire, the little feifdoms that comprise the world today can pay tribute to the US in gold.

or we'll nuke your ass

[Andrew D]

Maybe I'll go with the "pay back post-WWII reconstruction of Europe" plan first.

Anyway, are you seriously suggesting that the (alleged) unpopularity of an idea is a good reason not to argue for that idea on its merits?

[Gob]

Maybe I'll go with the "pay back post-WWII reconstruction of Europe" plan first.

Fill yer boots!

Anyway, are you seriously suggesting that the (alleged) unpopularity of an idea is a good reason not to argue for that idea on its merits?

If that was addressed to me then, of course I do not object. You are welcome to tell us that as many "campaigns for tilting at windmills," should be organised, at a time unspecified, by people unspecified, as you wish. It's not as if there is any consequence, apart from the usage of some pixels, that will ever come of it.

As I say, fill yer boots.

[The Hen]

Fine. Let's have the U.S. -- which does not (or, at least as of this past November, according to Australia's Defence Minister, did not) actually have any military bases in Australia -- stop rotating troops through Australia.

Oh, wait.

Australia wants U.S. forces to keep coming to Australia.

Actually, the agreement we signed in the 1950's means we have no other option than to say we welcome it. We don't. Beleive me, but we have no option.

If we actually had a referendum on it, that would NOT be our answer.



Still, feel free to argue the toss as usual.

[Andrew D]

Actually, the agreement we signed in the 1950's means we have no other option than to say we welcome it. We don't. Beleive me, but we have no option.

What agreement is that? I'd like to see what it says.

The statements quoted in the linked article -- statements by government officials and by the "[o]pposition defence spokesman" -- give no indication of any agreement requiring Australia to permit the presence of U.S. troops on Australian soil. The ANZUS Treaty does not appear to impose any such obligation on Australia. And the statement by the leader of Australia's Green Party indicates that whether to permit the presence of U.S. troops on Australian soil is a matter for parliamentary determination, not a matter already concluded by treaty:

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said any proposal for a US base should be debated by parliament.

"The proposal for Darwin needs to be clearly qualified and quantified by the Gillard government," he said in a statement.

The Greens want to end foreign troop deployment, training and hosting on Australian territory.

It strikes me that if Australia were bound by an agreement to host U.S. troops, one or more among:

--> The Prime Minister of Australia

--> The Defence Minister of Australia

--> The Australian opposition defence spokesperson

--> The leader of the Australian Green Party

--> The President of the U.S.

should have given that agreement at least a passing mention.

But maybe one or more of them did, and news.com.au failed to bring that to anyone's attention. I don't know.

Regardless, I am interested to see the agreement to which you refer. Have you (ideally) a link directly to it? Or a link to some source which has it somewhere? Or its name that I can use to search for it myself?

[Gob]

Have you lost interest in your "tax the world" and "pay us back from reconstruction" campaigns already? What a flibbertigibbet you are!

[Andrew D]

Anyway, are you seriously suggesting that the (alleged) unpopularity of an idea is a good reason not to argue for that idea on its merits?

If that was addressed to me then, of course I do not object. You are welcome to tell us that as many "campaigns for tilting at windmills," should be organised, at a time unspecified, by people unspecified, as you wish. It's not as if there is any consequence, apart from the usage of some pixels, that will ever come of it.

There is, of course, no way to know what might come of any campaign until that campaign is carried out. And maybe not even then: A campaign can fail the first time, fail again the second and third and however many other times, and ultimately succeed. (Viz., abolitionism, gay rights, etc.)

Or the campaign for this:

[A]ll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ....

or, phrased slightly differently:

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

(Respectively, Matthew 7:12 (AV) and Luke 6:31 (AV).)

People have been campaigning for that for many centuries. That campaign is still a far cry from success: Surely it is an extremely rare individual who behaves that way all the time, and even we merer people fall short lamentably frequently. (I certainly do.)

Should we stop campaigning for that?

No, public nudity is not on the same plane as a universal (or even general) principle of moral behavior. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, the underlying issue is merely exemplified by public nudity; public nudity is not the core of it.

The core of the matter is that prohibitions must be justified, and they must be justified on objective grounds. "It's always been this way" and "most of us prefer it" are not objective justifications for a prohibition: "It's always been this way" supported geocentrism, and "most of us prefer it" supported segregation in the southern U.S.

So I ask again: Are you seriously suggesting that the (alleged) unpopularity of an idea is a good reason not to argue for that idea on its merits?

[Andrew D]

Have you lost interest in your "tax the world" and "pay us back from reconstruction" campaigns already? What a flibbertigibbet you are!

What gives you that idea?

I am able condemned to hold interests in numerous things at once, even things which I would prefer not to be interested in. Aren't we all?

[The Hen]

Andrew- you are correct.

other than the vagaries of the provisions of the ANZUS Treaty, and documents that won't be released for a statutory period, I have nothing.

I shouldn't have joined in the first place.

I'll bow out now.