Comments on: How involved is Singapore government and Mindef in the Iraqi Invasion? http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-involved-is-singapore-government-and-mindef-in-the-iraqi-invasion/ "If you think you are too small to make a difference – try sleeping with a Mosquito" Dalai Lama Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:12:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: celluloidrealitys http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-involved-is-singapore-government-and-mindef-in-the-iraqi-invasion/#comment-951 celluloidrealitys Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:19:02 +0000 http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-involved-is-singapore-government-and-mindef-in-the-iraqi-invasion/#comment-951 We have a stake in American supremacy on certain fronts. The relationship we share with the United States is largely a vital counterweight that is part of our vital interests for the long term, perhaps beyond the next 40 years. Secondly, Singapore's foreign policy with regards to this is quite a realist one. We have a greater role to play in future peace enforcement operations.. and it is one area where we can expand our influence. This I feel, is but a stepping stone. We have a stake in American supremacy on certain fronts. The relationship we share with the United States is largely a vital counterweight that is part of our vital interests for the long term, perhaps beyond the next 40 years.

Secondly, Singapore’s foreign policy with regards to this is quite a realist one. We have a greater role to play in future peace enforcement operations.. and it is one area where we can expand our influence.

This I feel, is but a stepping stone.

]]> By: joncharles http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-involved-is-singapore-government-and-mindef-in-the-iraqi-invasion/#comment-948 joncharles Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:01:08 +0000 http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-involved-is-singapore-government-and-mindef-in-the-iraqi-invasion/#comment-948 The link to UN Security Council Resolution can be found through Google. Even if the navy was dispatched to support this Security Council Resolution, it still does not answer some pertinent questions: 1. Why did the Singapore government back the US in the invasion and allowed them to use our military facilities? Especially since it has not properly consulted Singaporeans on this issue? Note, this is not some military exercise but allowing the US to use these military facilities to launch the attacks into Iraq. The invasion was not approved by the UN. 2. The Mindef website has released some press statements on what was being dispatched to aid in "reconstruction of Iraq". What is the cost of such efforts and how many are of "reconstruction" nature? 3. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723 is a mandate passed by security council - the same council that refused to take actions against Burma when it crushes the Saffron Revolution (primarily, due to obstruction from the Chinese). This is not to discredit the security council but to highlight how the permanent members within the group have a greater say in what is to be done (or not). Considering that it consists of only 5 permanent members with 10 non-permanent members, it can hardly be considered an "international consensus". The only way to determine whether the Resolution is genuine (to promote national reconciliation and rebuilding efforts in Iraq) is to read the resolution. 4. In deploying our troops to "protect" the oil pumping platforms, one has to consider what sort of protection they are offering? Is it mainly to protect the interests of the multinational corporations which will then have the "legitimacy" to exploit Iraq's natural resources - namely oil? 5. In what ways hence, are the efforts aimed at "reconstruction of Iraq?" The link to UN Security Council Resolution can be found through Google. Even if the navy was dispatched to support this Security Council Resolution, it still does not answer some pertinent questions:

1. Why did the Singapore government back the US in the invasion and allowed them to use our military facilities? Especially since it has not properly consulted Singaporeans on this issue? Note, this is not some military exercise but allowing the US to use these military facilities to launch the attacks into Iraq. The invasion was not approved by the UN.

2. The Mindef website has released some press statements on what was being dispatched to aid in “reconstruction of Iraq”. What is the cost of such efforts and how many are of “reconstruction” nature?

3. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723 is a mandate passed by security council - the same council that refused to take actions against Burma when it crushes the Saffron Revolution (primarily, due to obstruction from the Chinese). This is not to discredit the security council but to highlight how the permanent members within the group have a greater say in what is to be done (or not). Considering that it consists of only 5 permanent members with 10 non-permanent members, it can hardly be considered an “international consensus”. The only way to determine whether the Resolution is genuine (to promote national reconciliation and rebuilding efforts in Iraq) is to read the resolution.

4. In deploying our troops to “protect” the oil pumping platforms, one has to consider what sort of protection they are offering? Is it mainly to protect the interests of the multinational corporations which will then have the “legitimacy” to exploit Iraq’s natural resources - namely oil?

5. In what ways hence, are the efforts aimed at “reconstruction of Iraq?”

]]> By: celluloidrealitys http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-involved-is-singapore-government-and-mindef-in-the-iraqi-invasion/#comment-934 celluloidrealitys Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:25:27 +0000 http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-involved-is-singapore-government-and-mindef-in-the-iraqi-invasion/#comment-934 CTF 158 is comprised of Coalition ships and its primary mission in the NAG is maintaining security in and around both the Al Basrah and Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminals (ABOT and KAAOT, respectively), in support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723. This resolution charges the multinational force with the responsibility and authority to maintain security and stability in the Iraqi territorial waters and also supports the Iraqi government's request for security support. Does that answer your question? CTF 158 is comprised of Coalition ships and its primary mission in the NAG is maintaining security in and around both the Al Basrah and Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminals (ABOT and KAAOT, respectively), in support of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723.

This resolution charges the multinational force with the responsibility and authority to maintain security and stability in the Iraqi territorial waters and also supports the Iraqi government’s request for security support.

Does that answer your question?

]]>