Well, at least you know what kinda person is behind those
words.
We certainly do, don't we ?
Seeking undiscerning support from all and sundry, even
from one who choose a monicker that turns logic on its
head - which even a kindergarten kid will laugh at.
Atobe, allow me to indulge myself and seek your entertainment
further.
You say that MoUs can be legally binding some cases. Do you even
know what these cases are where they are legally binding?
Following that, does Singapore have any existing treaty for the
above mentioned MoU with the US to "legally" amend and attain
"factual treaty status"? Please go give MFA a call or do you
whatever research you see fit. I know for sure, there was not
preceding treaty for the above MoU to amend, and hence not legally
binding.
Have you not shown yourself to be
unobtrusively over-indulging with your display
in self-indulgence as it is ?
Excuse yourself, if you cannot distinguish what is my
opinion and what has been clearly extracted and
quoted about "MoUs can be legally binding - in -
some cases" ?
Was that statement not printed by the wiki-reference
site given by Yourself - which you had originally depended for
your argument, and which you had intended to educate me with in
your claims concerning the issues that you insisted in your
reckless ways ?
Why use MFA as a shield to hide your ignorance - when you know
that MFA do not respond to any individual calls or queries of this
nature ?
Why do you not call them yourself, and clear this matter up with
an explanation from someone that you can name from the MFA who
will discuss this with you, and giving his
phone number in your next reply for purpose
of verification ?
With your views being trapped by your limited and confused
understanding of what a Treaty can be, should be, how to be, what
to be - can we hope for your own progress in educating yourself
first before attempting even to boast about educating me ?
You seem to be selectively reading the four
varied points in my last reponse and that
were extracted from your 'wiki-referenced' site - which you
depended on to support your limited understanding of the MoUs
between SG and USA.
Should we be suprised that you will now choose to rest
your argument on Point No 4 alone - ignoring the other
preceding points ?
There is no Treaty between SG and USA in the form that you are
specifically demanding, and its non-existence does not mean that the
MoUs do not have Treaty Status - as your claim has been
debunked by your 'wiki' reference.
It looks as if you are either unable to comprehend the four
points on the respective specific merit and / or when
read as a whole; or that you are interested only to
continue with your mischeivious insistence in the
mistaken belief that there is NO Treaty between SG and
USA.
The explanations given in your 'wiki-reference' has clearly
indicated that MoU is another form of Treaty between
countries. Period.
The Non-Aligned Movement is just a membership, signifying that
they are not a member of a power bloc, and nothing like a formal
alliance unlike NATO. It does not penalize its members for seeking
friendship and cooperation in time of peace. There is no such
thing as "active" membership. Its just membership or no
membership.
You may want to qualify your statement that the N.A.M. movement
is nothing like a formal alliance unlike NATO.
With your reliance on "wiki" as a reference point, perhaps you
should take a peek into the rich amount of information that it has
offered about the Non-Aligned
Movement - and which has largely contradict and
debunked your present statement.
If you do take an interest to truly educate yourself
by taking a peek at the given "wiki" site, you
should pay particular attention to (1) The Origin of
N.A.M., (2) Organisational Structure, (3) Ongoing Policies and
Ideology - more importantly - (4) Contemporary Relevance.
You may wish to note that - "The movement continues to see a
role for itself - no longer by opposing superpowers, but rather in
a uni-polar world, and it
is Western hegemony and neo-colonialism that the movement has
really re-aligned itself against."
If one is not an active adherent to an organisation, why join it
in the first place ?
Unlike Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia - like so many other
member nations of N.A.M - the other countries in N.A.M have
behaved in less hypocritical ways by adhering to the N.A.M
Principles of non-alignment.
This cannot be said of Singapore - and although no penalties are
applied, the SG leadership has been treated with disdain, which
largely explains for some of the less diplomatic opinions expressed
in private - at times negative reactions expressed
very publicly - by other government leaders.
Perhaps Singaporeans have been made to pay a higher price for
some of the ill conceived policies adopted by our SG
leaders.
Singapore's decisions to help out in Iraq is perhaps partially
helpful to improve ties with the US, but there are very utilitarian
views from LKY about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html
There are greater security implications with the power balance
in the middle east that LKY, or Singapore is /ought to be concerned
with.
You must be deluding yourself by assuming that the
minisicular contribution from SG can determine whatever power
balance in the Middle-east, when the USA cannot even prevent or
determine how the end game will appear in Iraq.
Your point concerning the "very utilitarian views from
LKY" is already well known - as he has been seen to be
ruthlessly exploitative of circumstances to advance his own goals -
and changing course without any qualms in sacrificing others whom
he can treat as pawns from his chess board.
It only shows that SG membership in the United Nations and in
N.A.M is for superficial purposes to gain recognition, while
LKY has shown that he will not be bounded by the rules
and conventions spelled out in the Constitutions of these
Organisations.
He has even abused the very principle of an independent
Singapore as clearly laid out in the Singapore Constitution - do
you think that membership in N.A.M or the UN means anything at all
to LKY ?
If it is pure utilitarian view, what is the point in your
bringing up the fact that SG is a member of N.A.M. in the first
place ?
Are you conceding now that SG is an ALLY of the USA - even as
you derided the honorable Willian Cohen who said so, in his
capacity as the US Secretary of Defense ?
Perhaps to refine my argument further. Obama's called up
close allies, countries which have official treaties with them.
Singapore's status is
not one of official "Ally." Neither Singapore nor The US
State Department's official stand on our relationship is one of
"alliance." We are partners in many ways, but not in official
status allies.
I'm not even worried about the nuances of our level of
cooperation with the US simply because my argument is about
status
You should only try to refine your arguments further, after you
read, absorb and refine your own misguided understanding to your
own "wiki" referenced material about M.o.Us and Treaties.
How much more "OFFICIAL" do you want SG to be
before being recognised as being or having the
status of an ALLY of the USA ?
From a study by Asia-Pacific
Center for Security Studies - (Pg 4 of 8) - it
reported that "during 2004 the two countries continued to negotiate
the Singapore-U.S. Strategic Framework
Agreement, which will further define defense and
security ties - although the exact details are not
yet public. Frank Lavin, U.S. Ambassador to SGP, has defined this
Framework Agreement not as a formal defense alliance, but as an
agreement that will facilitate greater cooperation in terms of
joint exercises.... The
signing of an agreement is also likely to facilitate Singaporean
access to U.S. defense technology."
The study had also highlighted the fact that SGP has to
accomodate the feelings and politics of her neighbors, and find
that formal alliance with the USA does not create any further
advantage to both parties, while MoUs and Agreements seems more
effective and help to achieve the immediate political and security
requirements.
It also reported that SGP and the U.S. have been negotiating a
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) that will
facilitate co-operation between the two countries in combating
money laundering through the banking system that unwittingly
channel funds to terrrorists.
Here is one clear US-SGP Treaty that is non-threatening to
SGP's neighbors - and is clearly announced; while the other
military-security co-operation are achieved by less offending
treaty-like MoUs that still have equal binding status as
FORMAL as Treaty can be - {as stated by Your wiki site).
Your argument is that Obama did not call Singapore because he
did not want to speak to despots. Can you prove it with any facts?
I'm not asking you to prove whether LKY is a despot, I'm
asking you to prove Obama's explicit views on Singapore, and that
his views affected the decision not to talk to us.
How can you possibly prove
that?
You must be truly childish and naive to ask for proof, when the
proof is already shown in his inaction in not calling a single
despot from the list of countries that the State Department has
classified as abusing the U.S. Principles of Political Freedom.
In the same reference piece from Asia-Pacific Center
for Security Studies - it had detailed that - "differences in
political structure mean that the US and SG still do not see
eye-to-eye on human rights issues...The U.S. State Department
continues to cite a lack of political freedom in SG, but
differences on this front do not impede economic, political and
security cooperation"
"The U.S. State Department, in its annual human rights reports,
finds that Singapore's judiciary is not wholly independent of the
ruling party and that the courts are often used against political
opponents. While noting that SG largely respects human rights, the
2003 report also noted the SG government's penchant to limit
freedoms and 'handicap political opposition' ".
Do you think that Obama has no access to this State Department
Report when it is available to the Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies ?
Obama's views on talking to despots are clear.
The U.S. State Department views on Singapore politics are just
as clear.
Do you think that Obama is not aware of events in SG - when
Obama praise SG education system at a Democratic Election
Rally in the recently concluded Elections ?
Do you think that the derisive remarks of the famed
SG despot towards Obama - made months ago - has
not reached him, when Obama is known to be an avid
"Blackberry" user, and constantly fed with information from friends
to the going-ons around the globe ? (see Times November
Edition commemorating Obama's victory).
Do you need lessons to make inferences in forming your own
conclusions ?
If you have been entirely educated in SG, it probably explains
for your inability to make your research and consistent dependence
on Black and White Answers placed on the table for your mind to
ponder if it is even safe to absorb.
The link between our authoritarian government and Obama's
non-inclusion of Singapore into his list of allies to call, is
something you totally made up.
Your Inference. Now known as the "atobe doctrine."
For one who pretend to be modest in not accepting any
accredition, you seem to be keen to give yourself the qualification
to return the unsolicted favor.
If this is not another cheap shot from one who has run out
of buck shots, and with blanks left to create more smoke and
sound to add on to the fog ?
How did you suddenly find the 'wherewithal' to make
inferences on such peripheral issues - when you decline to
make any effort on the main core issues propounded ?
How did you learn to make your own distorted
inferences from my posts to end up with your pathetically
ignorant opinion ?
Did you learn to selectively read what you want to
accept, while turning a blind eye to what has clearly been too
embarrassing and made your stand to become untenable ?
And honestly speaking, your argument is going OUT THE WINDOW,
the moment Obama's administration talks to Singapore.
Was anything mentioned that Obama will not talk to
SG's political leaders ?
What is the basis of your "inference" if you know how ?
Or is this another amateurish shot into the dark with the
remaining buckshot ?
Surely he will call SG - but when ?
It was only towards the end of his first term
that Bush finally had time to meet with Goh Chok Tong in 2003,
and then only in the middle of the second term did
he meet with LHL in mid-2005.
With Obama having to clear his immediate domestic problems,
balancing finances to meet his promised programs, and settling the
Iraq issues - he will then lined up his time to talk to the
despots.
Obviously, the first despot called will be the one that he sees
as the most urgent or the most wantonly despicable that
need his attention to make changes to the status quo.
With so many of your own irrational, reckless
and imaturity displayed, will you dare to venture to
make any "inferences" from this statement ?
Your points on LKY are good, but nonetheless have no relevance
unless you are able to prove the above. Until you can do
that, I'll just treat it as the "populist" smoke bomb that it
is.
Look amateur, the reason I think you so, is because you
construct an argument out of inference and
feelings. Opinions are nice to have, but don't really hold
any weight in an argument unless it is an opinion from an
authoritative source, which you are not.
Can anyone believe your self-indulging poppy-cock remark ?
How did you get through your tertiary education - if you had one
- as it seems that you seem to be confused as to how an argument is
formed, structured and presented ?
Firstly, do you even know what an "inference" is - or
"inferences" are ?
If research works are not from one's opinions and feelings
- from inferences made -can there be any successful
outcome to any research works ?
Are "inferences" not -
Is it any surprise that you could not even make any "inferences"
from your own "wiki reference sites" concerning 'MoUs' and 'N.A.M.'
- when your reasoning capacity is non-existent ?
With you foggy ideas and emotions convictions on the subject
issues trapping your already handicapped myopic views,
it can only result in your arguments being so hollow
- which make your cheap shots sound louder and creating
more smoke then you could otherwise have achieve.
You can call me whatever names you want, it just goes to show
how immature and amateurish you are in arguments. Looks like
after this episode, a number of users have seen that for
themselves. You overlook the blatantly obvious facts (in this
case status), and you construct an argument out inferences made out
of non-relevant facts (Singapore's authoritarian government,
LKY).
Is it necessarry to place any label on you - when your own
amateurish efforts in dabbling in this political corner has already
revealed the egoistic 'aw shucks' nature of one who has little
opinion of any substance, except to cause more trouble when taking
on a bigger role of a trouble-shooter then you can actually
manage ?
The only ones that seems to have taken note of this episode are
the three jaywalkers - in Stevenson101, stupidissmart, and
pigsticker - with the first two having no clue of their own to
make, while the last one was merely a pedestrian out to kick
a stone but got kicked instead.
Unless you count the noisy pussy to be of any substantive
credibility - it confirms your self-indulgence in seeking
recognition from all and sundry.
What obvious status can you possibly be referring to, or are you
expecting anyone to infer some recognition to your
position from your unsubstantiated nor qualified usage of the
word "STATUS" ?
Only you will believe that SG Authoritative Government is of no
consequence and irrelevant fact - while the U.S. Administration
continue to place this in their annual assessment of countries that
they deal with.
What does that go to show about you? Reckless, irrational
and immature. Just like CSJ when he was younger. Making
audacious claims without having factual evidence to back him up.
So what other names are you gonna call me now?
Was CSJ as reckless, immature, and irrational, or have you
simply succumbed to the propaganda - which is so readily
and easily absorbed by a naive, immature and
politically undiscerning mind that is trapped in a
self-indulging, egoistically, cock-sure
braggart tightly fitted into a gung-ho Shotgun toting kid
?
It seems that the only one making more audacious claims is you -
with your poor understanding of the MoUs, and N.A.M. to
the extent of even making audacious rejection of facts by
even ridiculing the honorable William Cohen's recognition of
SG as a true ALLY of the U.S.A.
What has your argument been all about - that SG is not an ALLY
of the USA, and / or that SG is not run by DESPOTS ?
The statements made in my post have been clear if
you still want to dispute that SG is not an ALLY.
It is common knowledge that SG is run by leaders who pretend to
be what they claim they are not, but in actual fact are no better
then third world DESPOTS.
Obama's attitude towards DESPOTS are known - that they must be
engaged and not left alone to do their evil deed to endanger the
world - and he did say that he will call them at his own
time.
The 9 countries that Obama called have ties to the USA that are
of varying qualities, with some countries not having the
quality relationship that SG has with the USA.
If you cannot make any "inference" from various issues that
resulted in this thread - including The Despot's disparaging
and reckless remarks about
Obama - it will reveal your mental incapacity that
probably borders on imbecilic impotence.
Seriously, in terms of immaturity, recklessness, and
irrationality - it is not unique to CSJ alone, as one can see
the same in LKY, LHL, GCT, MBT and other newly promoted Ministers
in LHL's cabinet.
They had the good fortune of having the various print and
broadcast media under their control, and allowed their immaturity,
recklessness and irrationality not being emphasised, and the
continuous publicity being muted.
Unlike them, the spotlight has clearly been focused on your
irrational interpretation of your own reference
materials, resulting in the extreme publicity being given to
your immature political views, that seems to
have bolstered your egoistic poppycock drive
towards recklessness in your
boastful annoucement to educate me.
It seems that you are not immune from your
uncharitable remarks about CSJ.
Clearly you have no capacity even to distinguish your nose
from your butt from all the foul air created by
your persistent dependence on blanks fired from your
shotgun.
Is there another name for an impotent
shotgun ?
