Lets put it this way.
Suppose you are a secret friend of Mas Selamat. Secret.
You are a friend, but not publicly announced.
And Mas Selamat has a list of open FRIENDS to call, eg Osama,
al-Zawahiri etc... Does it make sense for him to include You in the
list if both of you intend to keep your friendship under a shroud
of plausible deniability?
It seems that you are making your best efforts to fill
up the gaping creditbility gap that you have been creating -
can the credibility gap be filled with a tall tale ?
Comparing Singapore-US not so secret relationship with your
whimsical Mas Selamat secret relationship with yourself may sound
more plausible - as seen from your mysterious vigor
in denying the existence of such a relationship
based on your own foggy ideas concerning treaties, MoUs and even
membership in N.A.M.
In any case, Singapore's relationship with the US has never been
one of official alliance (proven fact due to lack of treaties), but
honestly speaking, plausible deniability has been a presumption on
my part.
Still, because we do not have an official alliance, there was no
reason to include us.
The lack of any "official alliance" is not equated by "lack of
treaties" - as the "Treaties" have taken a different format and
with these "Treaties" disguised as 'MoU' and 'Agreements' - which
YOUR offered 'wiki' reference sites have clearly stated that MoU's
have the same formal status as TREATIES.
How much more OFFICIAL an alliance must be - when Singapore has
supported the condemned U.S. policies in Iraq, even when the larger
membership of the United Nations had disagreed strongly with the
U.S. -and this included the majority of members of N.A.M.
?
2ndly, We don't even know what other agenda was part of Obama's
conversation with them. Singapore doesn't have to fit into
EVERY plan that Obama has planend for the US around the
world.
Did anyone suggest that Singapore has to fit into EVERY plan
that Obama has planned for the US around the world ?
The essence of this Thread is clearly stated and does
intend to suggest more or less - the controversies created
by readers like yourself deciding to read more to it.
FACT: Singapore is recognised by various US Administration,
the US Congress and even the US Senate as a strong Ally of the
USA.
FACT: LKY claims that Singapore has attained First World
status.
FACT: Obama ignored Singapore in his first call to the 9
countries that he sees as more relevant to himself - whatever his
agenda maybe (no presumptions nor have any inferences been
made.)
It is simply PRESUMPTIOUS of you to assume that Obama did not
call Singapore because of "Despotic leaders" as you claim.
Moreover, it even contradicts Obama's publicised policy of
talking to people without pre-conditions. Obama's intentions
as announced in the run up of his elections is to open
communications with people the US has trouble with, and not just
offer the silent treatment.
If the US is willing to do this for potential adversaries, isn't
it counter-intuitive for the US to cold-shoulder friends and
regional partners who offers facilities and bases for their Navy?
Hello?
Is it presumptious, or have you decidedly abandon to idea of
"INFERENCES" having come to a conclusion to its true meaning after
your previous flippant interpretation ?
With friends like Singapore's despots - making reckless
immature remarks about the proper place for the eugenics of
Blacks - does Obama need any enemies ?
For the sake of political pragmatism, USA has been prepared to
accept the invitation by the Singapore despots to use the military
facilities even as the USA and SG do not see eye-to-eye in the
manner that the SG despots treat the Citizens.
Who says that I cannot continue talking to you, even if I do not
share any common ground on many issues ?
I can simply ignore you if I wish to at my own time.
Obama has picked his time to ignore this supposedly sham First
World Despots that practice Third World Politics.
Singapore's JSF partnership is due the fact that we were willing
to throw in our chips $ into the program. No doubt, JSF
intends to market into South Korea and Japan, unfortunately, they
aren't interested when they know that there's something better
known as the Raptor. Hence, they don't intend to throw money
into joining the JSF partnership. If Japan and South Korea
wanted to, they can easily do it by just contributing and joining
the program. Singapore is in because we were willing to throw
in the chips, no doubt influenced by our Mexican
advisors.
Can the Raptor be better then the JSF - when the US is concerned
about technology leaks, and will insist on a "watered down version"
of the Raptor before allowing its sales overseas - even to one of
its most trusted allies ?
From the US point of view :-
“It's hard to envision the F-22A with its current
capabilities being exported, even to our closest allies. Its
capabilities would almost certainly have to be ‘watered down' for
export,” according to Christopher Bolkcom, an analyst at the
Congressional Research Service in Washington. “Would such an
aircraft be attractive to foreign countries? Probably. Would it be
priced affordably? That is more difficult to predict,” Bolkcom told
ITAF Feb. 14. “Technology transfer will likely be a critical issue”
“It's hard to envision the F-22A with its current capabilities
being exported, even to our closest allies. Its capabilities would
almost certainly have to be ‘watered down' for export,” according
to Christopher Bolkcom, an analyst at the Congressional Research
Service in Washington. “Would such an aircraft be attractive to
foreign countries? Probably. Would it be priced affordably? That is
more difficult to predict,” Bolkcom told ITAF Feb. 14. “Technology
transfer will likely be a critical issue” that U.S. policy-makers
would have to iron out, he added.
An assessment given by a Defense Correspondent concerning
Japan's position seems to have differed from your stated
assumptions of Japan's position towards the JSF Programme:
Tokyo’s relationship to the Joint Strike Fighter
captures the country’s ongoing confusion in handling security
issues: It seeks greater capabilities than the F-35 promises, but
does not have a clear doctrine as to how it will use them; it has
one of the most advanced defense industries in Asia, but is unable
to participate in the JSF program due to a long-standing ban on
arms exports. Tokyo will be grappling with these contradictions for
years to come, and the F-35 program will be a useful example to see
how it does so.
With regards to the South Korean's position, the same Defense
Correspondent offers the follow views :
South Korea presents an opposite trend, where Seoul is
reluctant to commit to closer ties to Washington despite being a
formal ally. Seoul recently procured a large number of F-15
aircraft from the U.S., but its emphasis on developing more
self-reliant defense capabilities conflicts with the possible
benefits for working with Washington on a program like the F-35 or
even taking a qualified role as a security cooperation
partner.
The cream of the comment about Singapore throwing its chip$ into
the JSF programme seems to indicate Singapore's continued interest
in insuring her security interest by strategically placing
herself closer to the USA, and subtlely doing so without
alarming her neighbors:
Singapore is one of the most interesting security actors
in Asia. The city-state maintains astoundingly close strategic ties
with Washington, purchasing much of its equipment from U.S.
suppliers, including its F-16 Falcons, AH-64D Apache attack
helicopters and CH-47SD Chinooks, which are all based in the U.S.,
where it trains in close cooperation with American forces.
Simultaneously, Singapore’s government appreciates its
geographic proximity to China and its other Southeast Asian
neighbors and seeks to avoid being seen in the region as the tip of
an American spear. The country has thus consistently sought to
maintain a relationship with the U.S. that allows it to maximize
the benefits of its relationship while minimizing what could be
weighty costs.
Singapore has likewise demonstrated its commitment to this
strategy when it decided in 2005 to purchase a squadron of F-15
aircraft against France’s Rafale fighter, reaffirming the value of
close ties with the U.S. Air Force in its acquisition and use of
military aircraft.
Sustained, strong ties with Canberra and other countries in the
region also reinforce Singapore’s ability to benefit from growing
interoperability among U.S. security partners in Asia, and the
city-state bases a portion of its air force in Australia.
This hedged relationship with Washington is reflected in
Singapore’s tie to the JSF program, in which it is participating as
an “international security partner.”
In that role, Singapore has maintained representation at the JSF
program office in the U.S. without having to make any financial
commitment through the SDD phase of the program. When the JSF is
released for sale through the foreign military sales program,
Singapore will enjoy being at the front of the queue for purchases
(along with Israel), whereas nonpartner countries will have to line
up afterward.
If the degree of Singapore’s participation in the JSF
demonstrates how it seeks to use its hedged relationship with
Washington to maintain as broad a set of strategic options as
possible, South Korea presents an opposite trend, where Seoul is
reluctant to commit to closer ties to Washington despite being a
formal ally.
Seoul recently procured a large number of F-15 aircraft from the
U.S., but its emphasis on developing more self-reliant defense
capabilities conflicts with the possible benefits for working with
Washington on a program like the F-35 or even taking a qualified
role as a security cooperation partner.
These were the comments about the reasons for the various
Asian countries decisions concerning the JSF programme.
I think I've had enough of this. I realized that all your
replies have been nothing but an effort to get me to keep coming
back to engage in your empty nonsensical and unproven argument.
I'll leave it to the rest of the rational users following this
thread to decide whose argument is more persuasive, logical and
backed up by facts.
Here again you presume too much of your own relevance to my
scheme of things.
As much as you claim to have been entertained by these exchanges
with me, have you realised that you are the one providing
entertainment with your reckless and immature inferences on
subjects that reveals the "hat is simply to big for your head"
?
The only reason in putting the sting and draw you back is to
test the character of the person - behind the "presumptious"
moniker - that I thought you will be, and each time it
confirms all that has been mentioned as seen from the deep hole
that you have dug for yourself through each response made.
You were and remain at liberty to choose not to reply - somehow
the vain ego prevent you from doing so, and with your reply not
having much more to add or clarify your misleading positions that
have been consistently debunked.
Empty nonsense from my writings and unproven arguments ?
The facts of my written argument are based
entirely on your own references given posted in your responses:
FACT: MoUs are as good and Formal as Treaties are made to
be.
FACT: Singapore is an Ally to the USA - with or without Formal
Declaration of Alliance - as seen by the number of
strengthening Defense Ties from the MoUs and Agreements
concluded.
FACT: LKY claim Singapore is a First World Country.
FACT: Obama did not call Singapore amongst the countries he sees
as strong Allies.
