• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In Australia’s Backyard – China Inks Pact With Solomon Islands To Set Up A Possible Military Base In The Region

If you want to complain about what your neighbour is doing, then it is a very good idea not to be doing the same thing yourself.

If you ARE doing the same thing that your neighbour is doing then getting into a "moral outrage" over them doing it really makes you look silly.
Look, I get that constantly living in shadow of your neighbor big brother can lead to bit of an inferiority complex and to climbing up on a moral holier than thou soapbox as compensation. But without America's worldwide military involvement, or invasions if you will, checking the spread of totalitarianism in the 20th Century, the world would likely be a worse place than it is now. And so despite this image of an imperial United States it's going to need us to stay engaged now as really only the US can meet some of the transnational challenges faced by the world in the 21st Century. But don't worry. Liechtenstein will be safe as I don't think anyone knows where to find it.
 
Well that Cuba thing didn't exactly work out all that well for them, did it? And if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a Chinese nuclear missile base to materialize in Solomons either

Username checks out. You seem to look fondly on games of chicken with nuclear armed powers. That was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war -- so far, but we may be trying to outdo that.

 
The PRC does NOT need to put nuclear missiles in the Solomon Islands in order be able to deliver nuclear warheads to Australia since it can already deliver nuclear warheads to the US (and Canberra is 2,000 km closer to Beijing than Washington DC is).

That's like saying the Soviets didn't need to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, because they had missiles at home with the range to reach the continental United States. And let's not forget the preceding provocation of American missiles in Turkey.

The Chinese are clearly responding to AUKUS, by setting up shop on Australia's eastern flank. That place is going to be their Cuba.
 
Username checks out. You seem to look fondly on games of chicken with nuclear armed powers. That was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war -- so far, but we may be trying to outdo that.


Don't think you can make make a more foolish observation than what you just made there. I was just 7 years old when the Cuban missile crisis broke out. The memories I have of it are not fond at all. I remember practicing duck and cover drills in my elementary school class rooms. Being shown films of nuclear blasts with the intended purpose of familiarizing us with the power of nuclear weapons. Which I believe at our tender age may have been counterproductive as we really didn't have the maturity to be able to wrap our heads around the concept of a single nuclear weapon being able to destroy an entire city and causing vast amounts of damage and destruction to the suburbs surrounding that city for many miles around. It was very scary. I had nightmares of nuclear explosions with mushroom clouds rising in the distance while I was away from home. Which would then devolve into being a stressed and hurriedly frightful decision of do I head to for the nearest fallout shelter as instructed? Or do I try to seek out my family members? So that I can at least be with them. Because otherwise who would take care of me? When will I see or be reunited with my family members afterward?... if ever? How would I know what became of them? How would they know what became of me?

What is most disturbing about the present situation is that predominant line of thought had been that it would be an outlier of the long time nuclear club of nations that would pose the greatest threat of a nuclear attack. Maybe some populist/demagogue figure arising to power in someplace and gaining nuclear weapons, like perhaps Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, or North Korea, that would pose the greatest threat, As the rest of the long time nuclear club historically appeared to fully understood the dire implications of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, and that the governments of this nuclear club were experienced enough, sophisticated enough to have built in guardrails, if you will, to ever seriously consider taking that first fatal step without damn good reason. But instead what we have seen the leader of Russia openly speaking of the use of nuclear weapons in the context of this present conflict to protect the interests of he, and his country. That's a pretty ****ed and scary scenario. And Putin is the one who is pushing it.

And btw the world has arguably come closer to nuclear war than the Cuban missile crisis had brought it.
 
Last edited:
Look, I get that constantly living in shadow of your neighbor big brother can lead to bit of an inferiority complex and to climbing up on a moral holier than thou soapbox as compensation. But without America's worldwide military involvement, or invasions if you will, checking the spread of totalitarianism in the 20th Century
I'm sorry, but you OBVIOUSLY don't quite realize that the US has been responsible for the installation of MORE "totalitarian governments" since WWII than any other country in the world
, the world would likely be a worse place than it is now. And so despite this image of an imperial United States it's going to need us to stay engaged now as really only the US can meet some of the transnational challenges faced by the world in the 21st Century. But don't worry. Liechtenstein will be safe as I don't think anyone knows where to find it.
Well, most certainly at least 75% of all American High School Graduates couldn't find it on a map.

"Here’s What Happens When You Ask 400 People Where All 50 States Are"
 
That's like saying the Soviets didn't need to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, because they had missiles at home with the range to reach the continental United States.
The missiles that the Russians were going to put in Cuba were MRBMs and could not have been used from Russia itself (at least not if anyone had any actual intention that they would reach the US).

The "Cuban Missile Crisis" is not quite as simple as you appear to believe it was. The Russians wanted to have a bargaining chip to get American missiles out of Turkey (which is a lot closer to Russia than Cuba is to the US). The Russians got the American missiles out of Turkey.
And let's not forget the preceding provocation of American missiles in Turkey.
Actually the US government was looking for a graceful way of getting out of having to replace the aging and obsolescent missiles in Turkey. They got out of replacing them.
The Chinese are clearly responding to AUKUS, by setting up shop on Australia's eastern flank. That place is going to be their Cuba.
That could well me. The Chinese might well be willing to trade something that they don't want for something that they do want.

On the other hand, I can imagine the global snickerfest which would result from the Australians announcing that they were banning all trade with the Solomon Islands and that they would impose crushing economic sanctions on any country that dared to defy their diktat not to trade with the Solomons.
 
I'm sorry, but you OBVIOUSLY don't quite realize that the US has been responsible for the installation of MORE "totalitarian governments" since WWII than any other country in the world
It's a moonlit night in the Pacific Ocean on June 6, 1944. News of the D Day Normandy Allied landings involving thousands of ships carrying160,000 allied troops, of which 73,000 are American, are just starting to reach American sailors on US ships halfway around the globe. They're sailing in a completely different American amphibious armada of more than 500 US ships, carrying over 120,00 US troops, seemingly unbeknownst to the rest of world, while simultaneously bearing down on the Japanese held island of Saipan. Those same forces would successfully invade Saipan just days later. Tell me what other nation could have possibly pulled such impressively powerful far flung multi-theatre military operations and logistical feats in WWII other than the United States? None. That's how many. Maybe you don't realize how grateful you should perhaps be that it was a nation like the US was able to do and help with such things at such an historically crucial time, and did them in the full support of democracy and freedom, over autocracy and enslavement. Just imagine if the history had been otherwise. You very well might have been consuming more sauerkraut than poutine ever since.
Well, most certainly at least 75% of all American High School Graduates couldn't find it on a map.

"Here’s What Happens When You Ask 400 People Where All 50 States Are"
Tell you what, given all the crap that has been swirling around up there, in a number of different arenas, it would seem fairly safe to assume that Canadians really don't have any better of an educational edge in this regard over us, or anyone else. So pretty sure the same question asked of all the provinces of Canada would generate pretty much the same result. EEHHH!
 
It's a moonlit night in the Pacific Ocean on June 6, 1944. News of the D Day Normandy Allied landings involving thousands of ships carrying160,000 allied troops, of which 73,000 are American, are just starting to reach American sailors on US ships halfway around the globe. They're sailing in a completely different American amphibious armada of more than 500 US ships, carrying over 120,00 US troops, seemingly unbeknownst to the rest of world, while simultaneously bearing down on the Japanese held island of Saipan. Those same forces would successfully invade Saipan just days later. Tell me what other nation could have possibly pulled such impressively powerful far flung multi-theatre military operations and logistical feats in WWII other than the United States? None. That's how many. Maybe you don't realize how grateful you should perhaps be that it was a nation like the US was able to do and help with such things at such an historically crucial time, and did them in the full support of democracy and freedom, over autocracy and enslavement. Just imagine if the history had been otherwise. You very well might have been consuming more sauerkraut than poutine ever since.

Tell you what, given all the crap that has been swirling around up there, in a number of different arenas, it would seem fairly safe to assume that Canadians really don't have any better of an educational edge in this regard over us, or anyone else. So pretty sure the same question asked of all the provinces of Canada would generate pretty much the same result. EEHHH!
'What other nation'? Well, let's take the Normandy landings for example. Over 5,000 ships, mostly British, sailed on June 6 1944, having completely fooled Hitler of their true destination, which he was convinced was going to be via the Pas de Calais. The vast assemblage of allied troops and materiel in Southern England was brilliantly disguised. This is in no way an attempt at minimising the US contribution, along with the rest of the Allies taking part.
 
Ok, relative to every other human civilization that ever existed after the end of the last ice age the aborigines were primitive AF.

They didn’t have anything resembling civilization. And there’s still aborigines around so they still exist despite the “white man coming along” as you put it


50,000 years ago there were no 'civilisations' as we perceive them today. Your native Americans migrated from Asia, and established a civilisation which the white man destroyed because they were in the way, and herded those who hadn't been killed-off into 'reservations'.
 
Last edited:
It's a moonlit night in the Pacific Ocean on June 6, 1944. News of the D Day Normandy Allied landings involving thousands of ships carrying160,000 allied troops, of which 73,000 are American, are just starting to reach American sailors on US ships halfway around the globe. They're sailing in a completely different American amphibious armada of more than 500 US ships, carrying over 120,00 US troops, seemingly unbeknownst to the rest of world, while simultaneously bearing down on the Japanese held island of Saipan. Those same forces would successfully invade Saipan just days later. Tell me what other nation could have possibly pulled such impressively powerful far flung multi-theatre military operations and logistical feats in WWII other than the United States? None. That's how many. Maybe you don't realize how grateful you should perhaps be that it was a nation like the US was able to do and help with such things at such an historically crucial time, and did them in the full support of democracy and freedom, over autocracy and enslavement. Just imagine if the history had been otherwise. You very well might have been consuming more sauerkraut than poutine ever since.
All very true, but totally non-responsive to "I'm sorry, but you OBVIOUSLY don't quite realize that the US has been responsible for the installation of MORE "totalitarian governments" since WWII than any other country in the world."
Tell you what, given all the crap that has been swirling around up there, in a number of different arenas, it would seem fairly safe to assume that Canadians really don't have any better of an educational edge in this regard over us, or anyone else.
I can't find anything substantial after the 2002 Roper/National Geographic study. In that study the US students scored 21 out of 56 and the Canadian students scored 27 out of 56. The Swedish students scored 40 out of 56.
So pretty sure the same question asked of all the provinces of Canada would generate pretty much the same result. EEHHH!
I'm pretty sure that more than half of the Canadian students could identify more than half of the Canadian provinces. I'm not so sure that more than half of the American students could identify more than half of the American states.
 
All very true, but totally non-responsive to "I'm sorry, but you OBVIOUSLY don't quite realize that the US has been responsible for the installation of MORE "totalitarian governments" since WWII than any other country in the world."
You can repeat that all you want but it doesn't mean much of anything without citation and context. Just be that US was able to fill the role as the arsenal of democracy in WWII or you might be living under a totalitarian government.
I can't find anything substantial after the 2002 Roper/National Geographic study. In that study the US students scored 21 out of 56 and the Canadian students scored 27 out of 56. The Swedish students scored 40 out of 56.

I'm pretty sure that more than half of the Canadian students could identify more than half of the Canadian provinces. I'm not so sure that more than half of the American students could identify more than half of the American states.
I think we can comfortably file those little nuggets under Who Cares.
 
'What other nation'? Well, let's take the Normandy landings for example. Over 5,000 ships, mostly British, sailed on June 6 1944, having completely fooled Hitler of their true destination, which he was convinced was going to be via the Pas de Calais. The vast assemblage of allied troops and materiel in Southern England was brilliantly disguised. This is in no way an attempt at minimising the US contribution, along with the rest of the Allies taking part.
Even there the US played a large role. The US shipped over 7 million tons of supplies to the invasion staging areas in Southern England in preparation for the invasion. Including 430,000 tons of ammunition. In 1943 with American industries hitting high gear Lend-Lease became a very instrumental to the war effort. It was providing goods and services to our allies at a rate of 1 billion dollars a month. In 1944 when Hitler's "Fortress Europe" was decisively breached that aid increased to 1.5 billion dollars a month.
 
You can repeat that all you want but it doesn't mean much of anything without citation and context. Just be that US was able to fill the role as the arsenal of democracy in WWII or you might be living under a totalitarian government.
American industries made a very tidy profit out of being "the arsenal of democracy" and the US government was quite happy to strip the treasuries of France, the UK, and any other country that had anything of worth and was in desperate need of weapons by demanding "Case In Advance" until those countries ran out of money.

As far as "living under a totalitarian government" is concerned, the Russians would have defeated the Germans and rolled right up to the English Channel whilst doing so. True it might well have taken longer, but the results were inevitable.

However, even that does not disguise the fact that since the "War to Defend Freedom" ended, the US government has been responsible for encouraging, installing, and supporting more totalitarian governments than any other country in the world.
I think we can comfortably file those little nuggets under Who Cares.
Yes, I can quite understand why some people are quite happy to see the level of actual knowledge enjoyed by the masses of the population decline.
 
Even there the US played a large role. The US shipped over 7 million tons of supplies to the invasion staging areas in Southern England in preparation for the invasion. Including 430,000 tons of ammunition. In 1943 with American industries hitting high gear Lend-Lease became a very instrumental to the war effort. It was providing goods and services to our allies at a rate of 1 billion dollars a month. In 1944 when Hitler's "Fortress Europe" was decisively breached that aid increased to 1.5 billion dollars a month.
That, making the most generous assumptions possible, would amount to US$30 Bn.

The Russians spent US$190Bn and the UK spent US$120Bn for a total of US$310 Bn. The total spent by the United Nations countries (excluding the US) was US$539.825Bn.

That means that the US contribution to the other nations fighting against Germany, Italy, Japan, and their associated states came to a whacking huge


of the amount that the United Nations countries spent.

That 5.557%, of course, neglects to mention the fact that those nations which did receive "Lend-Lease" assistance, EVEN RUSSIA, ended up paying the US for ALL of the assistance which the US had provided. So, even if only the British Commonwealth countries and Russia are considered, that amounted to around 85% of the total amount of "Lend-Lease" and, since those amounts have been fully repaid, that means that the US supplied "for free" about

0.83355%

of the amounts that the United Nations (excluding the US) countries spent to defeat Germany, Italy, Japan, and their associated countries.

Please note that the FACTS regarding "Lend-Lease" do not, in the least, diminish the actual American military contribution to the conduct of WWII. Had the US Army not been available in the European theater, then there would not likely have been any cross-channel invasion in 1944 (or ever [in either direction]), it would have taken longer to winkle the German/Italian forces out of Africa, and the Russian Army would have had to press onward into France and the Benelux countries to crush the Nazis. Since that would have provided the Russians with "secure borders" (after all, they could count on the French Communists, the Germans would have been annihilated, and the very thought of the UK, Spain, the Benelux countries, or the Scandinavian countries as posing any threat to "Mother Russia" is laughable) which would have considerably lessened the traditional Russian "paranoia" about invasion and conquest and there really wouldn't have been any European prizes to be picked up in any "Cold War" so the US would likely have returned to its traditional "To hell with everyone." foreign policy.
 
That, making the most generous assumptions possible, would amount to US$30 Bn.
That's the problem here. Your generous amount of assumptions in the absence of facts. The amount of Lend-Lease aid in 1947 dollars was close to $50 billion (equivalent to $582 billion in 2020) Some of that cost was offset by so-called reverse lend-lease, under which Allied nations gave U.S. troops stationed abroad about $8 billion worth of aid. But much of that $50 billion amounted to outright gifts. Lend-Lease agreements with 30 countries provided for repayment not in terms of money or returned goods, but in "joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world." That is the U.S. would be "repaid" when the recipient fought the common enemy and joined the world trade and diplomatic agencies, such as the United Nations. Other tacit repayments came in the form of sharing newly developed important technological advancements, rare metals and minerals, or other scarce commodities.

Large quantities of undelivered goods that were in Britain, or in transit to Britain, when Congress ended authorization for the Lend-Lease program on September 2, 1945, which the Brits desired to retain, in tandem with the1946 the post war Anglo-American Loan, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion, which went to keeping Britain's post war economy afloat, were sold to Britain at just 10% of their nominal value, further indebting Britain. Giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for which Britain was granted very generous terms for repayment in that they were stretched over 50 annual payments beginning in 1951, with 5 years of deferred payments at just 2% interest. The last payment was made in 2006 after which Britain formally issued thanks to the US for it's wartime support. Support mattered greatly in the early years of the war. Because Britain, being a small island nation that was very much dependent upon imported goods, was being threatened with starvation by Germany's U-Boat blockade and needed a minimum of 1 million tons of supplies and materials per week just to be able to survive and fight.

In regards to Russia, which received $11B dollars in Lend-Lease aid, and from which we received only $2M dollars in reverse Lend-Lease aid. That was mostly in the form of landing, servicing, and refueling of transport aircraft; some industrial machinery and rare minerals that were sent to the U.S. The US didn't really expect to expect to be repaid by Russia. Because you know, it's Russia. So what else would one expect?? The US at the end of the war asked Russia to repay just 1.3 billion of that 11 billion to settle the debt. Russia offered only 170 million. The dispute remained unresolved until 1972, when the U.S. accepted an offer from the USSR to repay $722M linked to grain shipments from the U.S., with the remainder being written off. So no, Russia did not end up paying back all of the assistance the US had given it in WWII. Not even remotely close at all in actuality.

Even Canada, whom received a total of defense materials and services through Lend-Lease channels $419,500,000, in conjunction reverse Lend-Lease $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000 in defense materials and services by Canada in the construction of joint defense facilities and works. That even though were carried out by Canada, the costs of which were mostly borne by the US, were not fully repaid. Under a new agreement that was suggested due to considerations of self-respect and national sovereignty by the Canadian Government. The total amount that Canada agreed to pay under the new arrangement came to about $76,800,000, which was some $13,870,000 less than the United States had spent on the facilities.
 
Last edited:
DELETED DUE TO FORUM CHARACTER LIMITS

Even Canada, whom received a total of defense materials and services through Lend-Lease channels $419,500,000, in conjunction reverse Lend-Lease $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000 in defense materials and services by Canada in the construction of joint defense facilities and works. That even though were carried out by Canada, the costs of which were mostly borne by the US, were not fully repaid. Under a new agreement that was suggested due to considerations of self-respect and national sovereignty by the Canadian Government. The total amount that Canada agreed to pay under the new arrangement came to about $76,800,000, which was some $13,870,000 less than the United States had spent on the facilities.
You might be interested in reading

The United Kingdom was not the only nation to strike such a deal with the United States. Over the course of the war, the United States contracted Lend-Lease agreements with more than 30 countries, dispensing some $50 billion in assistance. Although British Prime Minister Winston Churchill later referred to the initiative as "the most unsordid act" one nation had ever done for another, Roosevelt's primary motivation was not altruism or disinterested generosity. Rather, Lend-Lease was designed to serve America's interest in defeating Nazi Germany without entering the war until the American military and public was prepared to fight. At a time when the majority of Americans opposed direct participation in the war, Lend-Lease represented a vital U.S. contribution to the fight against Nazi Germany. Moreover, the joint action called for under Article VII of the Lend-Lease agreements signed by the United States and the recipient nations laid the foundation for the creation of a new international economic order in the postwar world.
[SOURCE]

You appear to be confusing the American purchases of Canadian produced war materials which it then lumped into the "Lend-Lease" shipments and claimed the credit for with American "Lend-Lease" benefits to Canada.

Or possibly you are confusing the $1,000,000,000 in aid that Canada sent to the UK (as a gift) with the loans that the US government advanced.

Canada has received no lend-lease aid from the United States, but has its own mutual aid program, corresponding to our lend-lease. It has made outright gifts of about 1 billion dollars’ worth of supplies to the United Kingdom and in addition sent l billion dollars’ worth as mutual aid (up to the summer of 1944). Britain has not only furnished large quantities of war goods to the Soviets, but had provided our forces with almost 2 1/2 billion dollars of reverse lend-lease aid up to June 30, 1944.
(emphasis added)
[SOURCE]
PS - It always helps when you include sources for the stuff that you C&P.​
 
You might be interested in reading
[SOURCE]​
Sorry but that isn't telling me anything there that I didn't already know. Once the US entered into the war it was able go full in with lend-lease and I have already previously pointed out here that enjoining in a liberal international economic and institutions such as the UN in the postwar world was considered to be repayment in full for some 30 nations
You appear to be confusing the American purchases of Canadian produced war materials which it then lumped into the "Lend-Lease" shipments and claimed the credit for with American "Lend-Lease" benefits to Canada.​
[SOURCE]​
I'm not confusing it with anything. I had stated this mutual aid was done through lend-lease channels within the context of reverse lend-lease.
Collaboration in the economic field was broad in scope and of utmost importance, but in this field civilian agencies played the major role. Although Canada, as one of the leading industrial nations of the world, did not request direct lend-lease assistance during the war, a certain amount of war material and a much larger amount of industrial goods were sold to Canada through lend-lease channels as a matter of administrative convenience. To pay for them, the Canadian Government maintained a dollar fund with the United States Treasury. The total of defense materials and services that Canada received through lend-lease channels amounted in value to approximately $419,500,000. 1 Of this total, only $167,158,000 represented War Department shipments. Nearly 56 percent of the War Department shipments, in value, consisted of ground material including rifles, revolvers, antiaircraft and machine guns, ammunition of various types, and trucks. The remainder was aircraft and aeronautical material.2 By far the great bulk of goods and material that Canada purchased in the United States was obtained from American suppliers by direct negotiation with them. Army representatives of the War Production Board handled the allocation of controlled materials for these Canadian orders. The appropriate supply services of the United States Army cleared and scheduled the desired production. Some idea of the scope of economic collaboration can be had from the fact that from the beginning of 1942 through 1945 Canada, on her part, furnished the United States with $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000 in defense materials and services. From September 1943 to September 1945, 14 percent of Canada's total war production went to the United States
PS - It always helps when you include sources for the stuff that you C&P.​
You should talk. Did you source you claim that US has directly propped up more authoritarian governments post WWII than any other nation. Nope.
 
Sorry but that isn't telling me anything there that I didn't already know. Once the US entered into the war it was able go full in with lend-lease and I have already previously pointed out here that enjoining in a liberal international economic and institutions such as the UN in the postwar world was considered to be repayment in full for some 30 nations

I'm not confusing it with anything. I had stated this mutual aid was done through lend-lease channels within the context of reverse lend-lease.
You appear to be confused by the means by which Canada BOUGHT (i.e. "paid for") materials

Please reread the

a much larger amount of industrial goods were sold to Canada through lend-lease channels as a matter of administrative convenience. To pay for them, the Canadian Government maintained a dollar fund with the United States Treasury. The total of defense materials and services that Canada received through lend-lease channels amounted in value to approximately $419,500,000
bit.
You should talk. Did you source you claim that US has directly propped up more authoritarian governments post WWII than any other nation. Nope.
Did I C&P it? No I did not. I rather (silly me) expected that someone who wanted to discuss American politics would actually have some knowledge of what they actually were. Of did you think that the governments that the US set up in (South) Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, many of the South American countries, and several of the Caribbean countries were "democracies"?
 
Back
Top Bottom