Japan threatens Korea with pre-emptive strike

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
That's BS. You just need to look at what happened in Bosnia to draw the conclusion on what could happen in Kosovo, if we did not step in.

Good laugh.

So what exactly happened in Bosnia anyway? It's not like the Muslims were exactly the good guys.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Since when did loyalty entail blindly following an aggressive policy they disagree with?

They don't have to blindly follow; all they need to do is stay out of America's way.

If they believe the U.S. actions are wrong, they have a duty to themselves to voice their objections.

Of course it isn't. It is disloyal to actively opposed American interests, however.

Why should they be loyal if the interests are seen as something wrong?

The Japanese have never risked their alliance with the US over some minor differences over US policy. Only France and Germany are stupid enough to do that.

"minor?" Please. There's nothing minor about warmongering.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
US has asked for multilateral talks with Nkor, and Nkor want one on one with US. China and Russia, despite their alleged beliefs in multielateralism, are not supportive of the US position.

Funny that, since I have been hearing DPRK wanting to meet directly with the US.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why should they be loyal if the interests are seen as something wrong?

So you admit that they're being disloyal?

If they believe the U.S. actions are wrong, they have a duty to themselves to voice their objections.

Being loyal to an ally sometimes involves biting the bullet and keeping your views to yourself, especially when your opposition would have an adverse effect on a policy your ally strongly supports.

"minor?" Please. There's nothing minor about warmongering.

The EUnuchs didn't seem too concerned about warmongering when America was taking care of Bosnia and Kosovo for them...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So you admit that they're being disloyal?

Being loyal to the U.S. does not entail tolerating policies they find immoral. Despite the Iraq flap, France and Germany have not altered their position vis-a-vis the U.S. much at all. However, U.S. Congressmen are the ones calling for sanctions on them for disagreeing with U.S. policy.

Being loyal to an ally sometimes involves biting the bullet and keeping your views to yourself, especially when your opposition would have an adverse effect on a policy your ally strongly supports.

Bullshit. Being loyal to an ally does not entail embracing or tolerating a policy one finds morally objectionable. Especially one that will result in a war where thousands die.

The EUnuchs didn't seem too concerned about warmongering when America was taking care of Bosnia and Kosovo for them...

Funny how that was an entirely different situation, since a war was already happening and the effort was to stop one, not manufacture a new one.

[Drake Tungsten]

Despite the Iraq flap, France and Germany have not altered their position vis-a-vis the U.S. much at all.

Not true. France and Germany are trying to position themselves as the leaders of a European Union that will provide opposition to the US. It's a big change, especially for Germany.

Being loyal to an ally does not entail embracing or tolerating a policy one finds morally objectionable.

Why not? America has put up with all the morally objectionable things France has done over the years...

Funny how that was an entirely different situation, since a war was already happening and the effort was to stop one, not manufacture a new one.

Oh yes, America is just manufacturing a war with Iraq. It's not like they've been in violation of a cease-fire for twelve years or anything.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Not true. France and Germany are trying to position themselves as the leaders of a European Union that will provide opposition to the US. It's a big change, especially for Germany.

Whether true or not, that doesn't mean they've changed any substantial policies in regards to the U.S.

Why not? America has put up with all the morally objectionable things France has done over the years...

Like?

If the U.K. decided to invade Argentina, I doubt the U.S. would sit by out of "loyalty."

Oh yes, America is just manufacturing a war with Iraq. It's not like they've in violation of a cease-fire for twelve years or anything.

Tell me, over the past 12 years, who has bombed who: Iraqi jets bombing U.S. sites, or U.S. jets bombing Iraqi sites?

[Drake Tungsten]

Whether true or not, that doesn't mean they've changed any substantial policies in regards to the U.S.

Refusing to help defend a NATO ally is a substantial change in policy.

Like?

The weakening of the UN sanctions against Iraq, for one. France's treatment of its former African colonies as its own personal sandbox is another.

If the U.K. decided to invade Argentina, I doubt the U.S. would sit by out of "loyalty."

If the U.K. had some semi-plausible justification, I think the U.S. would.

Tell me, over the past 12 years, who has bombed who: Iraqi jets bombing U.S. sites, or U.S. jets bombing Iraqi sites?

The fighting has gone both ways. The Iraqi sites target and fire upon Allied planes, so the Allied planes blow up Iraqi sites. This shows that the war has never really ended; America is not "manufacturing" a conflict out of thin air.

This tangent we've got on is really irrelevant to my original point. I said Japan was loyal while France and Germany are not. You've agreed that France and Germany are disloyal. So why do we need to fight?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Refusing to help defend a NATO ally is a substantial change in policy.

NATO calls for defending an ally from a war that hasn't started yet, in which another ally is the aggressor?

The weakening of the UN sanctions against Iraq, for one. France's treatment of its former African colonies as its own personal sandbox is another.

The first is funny as an example of them doing something "awful," as one could easily say the sanctions themselves are truly the "awful" things, considering the price paid by Iraqi civilians.

The second is not too specific either, but considering what the U.S. has been doing abroad for the last 60 years, I don't think we have room to complain.

If the U.K. had some semi-plausible justification, I think the U.S. would.

But the point was, if the U.S. felt there was no plausible justification.

And are you saying all war requires is a semi-plausible justification?!

The fighting has gone both way. The Iraqi sites target and fire upon Allied planes, so the Allied planes blow up Iraqi sites. This shows that the war has never really ended; America is not "manufacturing" a conflict out of thin air.

Since the No-Fly Zones were not part of the ceasefire agreement, but were unilaterly imposed by the U.S., Iraq is perfectly justified in firing on planes invading its sovereign air space. Allied planes are not justified in destroying Iraqi ground sites.

Looks to me like we're the ones violating the ceasefire, not Iraq.

[Drake Tungsten]

The first is funny as an example of them doing something "awful," as one could easily say the sanctions themselves are truly the "awful" things, considering the price paid by Iraqi civilians.

The second is not too specific either, but considering what the U.S. has been doing abroad for the last 60 years, I don't think we have room to complain.

How about blowing up Greenpeace ships? Is that specific enough for you?

And are you saying all war requires is a semi-plausible justification?!

I originally wrote "plausible justification" but I figured you would go off about the US justification in Iraq not being "plausible" (even though it is), so I wrote "semi-plausible" to avoid yet another mind-numbing debate over the US reasons for war. Hopefully Ming will appreciate my attempts...

Iraq is perfectly justified in firing on planes invading its sovereign air space. Allied planes are not justified in destroying Iraqi ground sites.

Floyd? What have you done with Boris?

Looks to me like we're the ones violating the ceasefire, not Iraq.

If that's how things look to you, you might want to study the ceasfire a bit more closely. Iraq's refusal to disarm is a direct violation of the ceasefire.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How about blowing up Greenpeace ships? Is that specific enough for you?

I believe the U.S. objected to this, did we not?

Floyd? What have you done with Boris?

I didn't say I hoped they hit U.S. planes, just that they are right in defending themselves.

If that's how things look to you, you might want to study the ceasfire a bit more closely. Iraq's refusal to disarm is a direct violation of the ceasefire.

Nuh-uh, you're sidestepping. Explain how the U.S. bombing Iraqi sites after the ceasefire isn't a violation of the ceasefire.

[Drake Tungsten]

Explain how the U.S. bombing Iraqi sites after the ceasefire isn't a violation of the ceasefire.

If the U.S. planes don't fire until fired upon, then they are acting in self-defense and are not violating the ceasefire.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Explain how the U.S. bombing Iraqi sites after the ceasefire isn't a violation of the ceasefire.

If the U.S. planes don't fire until fired upon, then they are acting in self-defense and are not violating the ceasefire.

They were violating Iraqi airspace and fired on radar that had targetted them.

If Iraqi jets showed up over Florida, don't you think we'd have a right to shoot them down?

[Drake Tungsten]

If Iraqi jets showed up over Florida, don't you think we'd have a right to shoot them down?

Not if we had fought and lost a war against Iraq and had no-fly zones imposed on us to prevent the slaughter of innocent Floridians...

These hypothetical situations are getting you nowhere, Boris.

[GePap]

Boris is correct, Loyalty is earned. Allies means equals Drake; If you want vassal states, go out and buy some poor African states, or maybe the dictators we have "allied" ourselves with in Central Asia. France and Germany don't owe us anything today, and they are free and correct to carry out independent policies. I find your attitude sadly childish.

As for Japan being owrth more than France and Germany: in the international stage, Japan is a 20 foot dwarf, just like Germany used to be. Rich but generally inconsequential, and since the Japanese have failed to mend fences in Asia as the Germans did in Europe, the amount of political clout they carry is very small. Lets not forget the fact that opinion polls in Japan are as strongly anti-war as they are evrywhere in western Europe. The best comparison to the Japanese case then is somebody like Spain or Italy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Boris is correct, Loyalty is earned.

I never disagreed with this. I, however, believe that the US has done more than enough to earn some loyalty from France and Germany.

I find your attitude sadly childish.

Insulting me does nothing to disprove my point of view.

Japan is a 20 foot dwarf, just like Germany used to be.

The way Germany "used to be"? Germany is just as inconsequential as they have always been...

Rich but generally inconsequential, and since the Japanese have failed to mend fences in Asia as the Germans did in Europe, the amount of political clout they carry is very small.

You can dismiss Japan all you want, but they are just as important as Germany and a far better friend to the US than France has ever been. The Japanese have earned my respect; France and Germany have not.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Which clause?

First off you're a **** for demanding that other people do your homework, especially considering that you're trying to demonstrate that America violates international law. If you make an accusation, you should provide the evidence. America does not have to prove its innocence to your illegitimate slandar.

Here's the text of UN Security Council Resolution 1368

Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001), 12 September 2001


The Security Council,

Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,

1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;

3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;

5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Clauses 3 and 4 were being followed by the United States and its allies, and being ignored by the allies of Al Qaeda, including the Taliban government in Kabul.

The overthrow of the Taliban regime was justifiable under clause 5 which "expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations." The Taliban was sheltering an organization that deliberately attacked the United States. We were defending ourselves against Al Qaedan aggression, and the Taliban opposed us militarily while we were doing so. We were within the bounds of international law.

Now please shut the hell up, UR. If you're not going to contribute to the discussion, don't pester the people who are taking this seriously with your unfounded accusations.

[GePap]

Drake:

Thinking that a state has to "earn your respect" is what I find childish. As for "disproving your point", how? Your 'point' is an opinion. Opinions can not be disproved. All you have said is

I, however, believe that the US has done more than enough to earn some loyalty from France and Germany.

That is a statement of opinion. You offer no evidence, since you can't. I disagree with your opinion, and I think they don't have to be loyal to us because what we did we did for ourselves first, then to "be good". As Boris said, do we owe France loyalty for thier crucial, if not central, aide to our cause of independence? yet we double crossed the French in 1783, just 2 years after Yorktown by negotiating with the English by oursleves in secret. So much for American loyalty.

The way Germany "used to be"? Germany is just as inconsequential as they have always been...

Yes, we all know about that period between 1871 and 1945 in which Germany was as inconsequential as always... Drake, why make blatantly worng statements? Do you think it helps your opinion in some way? I don't get it.

Germany is very relevant, because, as the Economist put it in their edition 2 weeks ago, for all intents and purposes, until 2000, the EU was the "Mark zone" sicne Germany is the Economic heart of Europe. Given Germany's size, its wealth, and its location, it will always be the most important spot in Europe, and unless you wan to tell me that the EU zones, an area with a larger share of the world's Gross product than the US, is itself inconsequential, germany matters. Japan is very rich indeed, but it has little political influence even within its own area: Hello, the Germns have troops in kosovo and they right now have taken over the Peacekeeping mission in Kabul. Please oh please do tell me about hose vital or even newsworthy Japanese overseas commitments...Oh, and also about all the Al qaeda cells they have broken..Oh, and....
If japan is so "important", why does no one seem to care what they think about Iraq?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nuh-uh, you're sidestepping. Explain how the U.S. bombing Iraqi sites after the ceasefire isn't a violation of the ceasefire.

I'm going to make it very simple for you. When a SAM launcher turns on its radar and lights up an air plane it is making a very explicit threat. It is threatening to destroy the plane and kill the pilots. The pilots have two options 1) Ignore the threat and risk being killed and having their plane destroyed. or 2) Destroy the SAM site and eliminate the threat.

Choice #2 is self defense and self defense is never wrong. In another analogy if you are walking down the street and a man points a gun at you then you have a right to defend your life, even to killing the man, because he has made his intent very obvious.

[Ted Striker]

Oerdin is right the whole freakin' purpose of the no fly zones was to keep Saddam and his psychopath son from sending in their gunships to mow down Kurds and the rival Muslims to the South.


The only mistake in this whole charade was not killing Saddam the first time.


**** the UN. All systems go, let's get it done and get it overwith.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thinking that a state has to "earn your respect" is what I find childish.

Why? I don't see anything wrong with expecting some loyalty out of countries we are allied with.

Yes, we all know about that period between 1871 and 1945 in which Germany was as inconsequential as always... Drake, why make blatantly worng statements? Do you think it helps your opinion in some way? I don't get it.

We were talking about the post-WWII period, GePap. If we're going to throw pre-1945 events into the mix, then your statement about Japan being a "20 foot dwarf" is blantantly wrong as well...

Germany is very relevant, because, as the Economist put it in their edition 2 weeks ago, for all intents and purposes, until 2000, the EU was the "Mark zone" sicne Germany is the Economic heart of Europe.

This is the exact same role Japan serves in Asia. Asia can be thought of as a "Yen zone", since Japan is the economic heart of Asia right now.

Please oh please do tell me about hose vital or even newsworthy Japanese overseas commitments...

Japan is participating in UN peacekeeping operations in Cambodia. They commit troops for peacekeeping missions, just like the Germans.

Oh, and also about all the Al qaeda cells they have broken..

Hard to break up Al-Qaeda cells when none exist in your country...

If japan is so "important", why does no one seem to care what they think about Iraq?

People with any intelligence value Japan's views on Iraq as much as Germany's. The two countries are really quite similar; both are economically powerhouses but militarily weaklings. Since neither has a veto on the Security Council, they are both rather irrelevant unless you want funding for your operations.

All in all, GePap, I find your Japan-bashing rather childish, not to mention misinformed.

[GePap]

All in all, GePap, I find your Japan-bashing rather childish, not to mention misinformed.

precious.

Japan is participating in UN peacekeeping operations in Cambodia. They commit troops for peacekeeping missions, just like the Germans.

Many states give troops to UN peacekeeping: the fact that the Germans have a significant force enough in Afghanistan (the place of the day) and that they have very significant forces in Kosovo (My guess the entire Japanese continegent in Cambodia is under 2000 men, probalby less. Compare that to German forces in kosovo)

This is the exact same role Japan serves in Asia. Asia can be thought of as a "Yen zone", since Japan is the economic heart of Asia right now.

Yet Japan's economic power does not give them much political power either, now does it? Because Japan has such a poor record of trying to make up with its neighbors its political opinions do no carry that much weight in Asia, no matter how much they invest. Germany has close ties to all its neighbors, while in S.Korea, people are willing to cut of their thumbs to protest Japanese text-books. Since the issue of war and peace is primarily political, Japan's influence remains far behind its economic power.

Why? I don't see anything wrong with expecting some loyalty out of countries we are allied with.

Oh, were oh were is American loyalty to them? Again, allies are equal partners. If beign an ally means being loyal, then the US, by your rational, should also be loyal to them and their wishes.You demand something you seem utterly unwilling to give in return.

We were talking about the post-WWII period, GePap. If we're going to throw pre-1945 events into the mix, then your statement about Japan being a "20 foot dwarf" is blantantly wrong as well...

If I remember correctly, from 1946 to 1989 the central issue of the day was something called the Cold War.. and during that period, the central piece of the puzzle was Europe, and specifically Germany. There used to be this wall, somewhere, where was it? Tokyo, no...Osaka?..no, Oh yeah, Berlin, the current capital of Germany. I remember a big crisis over it in, what was it, 1962? Oh, and the issue of the Perhisngs, oh, and then there was the formation of the Warsaw pact once germany joined NATO, and the famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech by Kennedy, which of course was matched by Bush 41 puking on the Japanese prime minster, no? And that great moment, in 1989 when in Japan..no wait, that was in Berlin too.

Must I keep going? Germany was central to the Cold War (hell, the Central front was there). Japan was important too, so in fact, to say either state is inconsequential is inherently utterly wrong . Yet there is a real difference. Germany, through the EU and NATO has begun to re-aquire the political force due a state of its size and wealth and position. Japan has not, especially since it has yet to fix the fences it broke 50 years ago. That's why I said 20 footdwarf: its immense economic might (or if you will, the 20 foot part) has yet to translate to meaningful political influence (hence the dwarf part). So, unlike yourself, I never said either germany or Japan was inconsequnetial in the same hyper-jingo European bashing, sort of mindless and altogether no longer imaginative way you did so.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus GePap, why don't you take some time in your ravings to make a coherent point? I don't even know what to refute since I have no idea whatsoever of what you're trying to get at...

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by GePap
France and Germany don't owe us anything today, and they are free and correct to carry out independent policies.

I agree 100 percent.

It's time to terminate NATO and withdraw U.S. forces from all former NATO countries. Yes, I'm serious. It's time NATO went the way of the former Warsaw Pact. The developing European Rapid Reaction Force should be more than sufficient to protect the Continent from any threats, and allow it to project power for the first time in, oh, 60 years.

Gatekeeper

[GePap]

Drakey, Drakey.. do i need ot capitalize?

Let me simplify for yah:

1. An Allience is a mutual act. Allies are partners and equals. You demand loyalty form our allies: if we are trully allies they have as much right to demand loyalty from us, loyalty you surely will not give them. And as for "historical debts", no such thing. What happened 50 years ago was 50 years ago, and while you have a right to ask them to be grateful, being grateful does not euqal having to be loyal. (Is this put simple enough for you?)

2. Both germany and Japan were crucial allies during the 40 years of the Cold war (remember that?). Germany was the linchpin of NATO, Japan key to the Northern Pacific front. To say that sicne 1946 either state has been "inconsequential" is moronic. (is that put simply enough?)

3. Germany is a key member of NATO and the biggest individual piece of the EU. Japan is not part of any treaty org, and there certainly is no Asian version of the EU. Becuase of this simple fact, it is easy to see why Germany, now that it is willing, has gained more political weight than it was willing to ask for back in 1990. being a key member of NATO but more specifically the EU, and central to how the EU will strenghten, makes Germany very important politically. But we could only get the EU because Germany was willing to repair the fissures of history with its neighbors, specially France (thus the germ of the EU was born between the two). Japan has not mended fences. States in Asia look to Japan for money, nothing else. Japan does not have much political power even in its own neighborhood. just look at its tense relation with what should be its closest local ally, S.Korea. And while Japan may contirbute some minor contingents to UN peacekeeping, it pales to german commitments in Afghanistan, and even Kososvo: remeber the forces in Kososvo are NOT UN peacekeepers, but German troops, with german tanks, and other military equipment. Germany was the first to use its forces outside its borders, a step Japan has yet to emulate. (was this too long for you?)

[Drake Tungsten]

Drakey, Drakey.. do i need ot capitalize?

Better spelling might help me understand your posts better...

You demand loyalty form our allies: if we are trully allies they have as much right to demand loyalty from us, loyalty you surely will not give them.

This is a blantantly false statement. America does all kinds of things for Europe. We took care of Bosnia. We took care of Kosovo. For god's sake, the Euros couldn't even solve that crisis between Spain and Morocco without American help.

We clean up all sorts of problems for France and Germany, but how do they repay us? They stab us in the back on an important foreign policy issue. America isn't expecting that much out of them. France doesn't have to send troops to Iraq; they don't even need to support the US stance. All they need to do is not actively oppose the United State in the Security Council. I think we deserve that, especially from an "ally".

To say that sicne 1946 either state has been "inconsequential" is moronic. (is that put simply enough?)

When I said they were inconsequential, it was in regards to the current issue of Iraq. You were the one who brought the historical references into play, not I, so don't attack me for something I never said.

Germany is a key member of NATO and the biggest individual piece of the EU. blah blah blah basic comparative analysis blah blah blah Germany was the first to use its forces outside its borders, a step Japan has yet to emulate.

What was the point of this paragraph? I don't see what any of this has to do with Iraq.

As for your belief that Germany is more important than Japan; I don't agree. I don't want to debate it, however, as it is not relevant to the topic. Start a new thread if you want to discuss this.

(Is this put simple enough for you?)
(remember that?)
(is that put simply enough?)
(was this too long for you?)

Does condecension make you feel like a big man? Frankly, I'd be more impressed if you could provide a coherent argument that manages to stay on topic. (Do you know how to do that?)

edit: Looking back through the thread, I notice that is was you who started the whole "inconsequential" business...

As for Japan being owrth more than France and Germany: in the international stage, Japan is a 20 foot dwarf, just like Germany used to be. Rich but generally inconsequential

You called Japan inconsequential and I said that Germany was just as inconsequential. Then you come back with this!

so in fact, to say either state is inconsequential is inherently utterly wrong

Are you drunk? You brought up countries being "inconsequential" and then explode on me a couple posts later for agreeing with you. What the ****?

[GePap]

This is a blantantly false statement. America does all kinds of things for Europe. We took care of Bosnia. We took care of Kosovo. For god's sake, the Euros couldn't even solve that crisis between Spain and Morocco without American help.

We clean up all sorts of problems for France and Germany, but how do they repay us? They stab us in the back on an important foreign policy issue. America isn't expecting that much out of them. France doesn't have to send troops to Iraq; they don't even need to support the US stance. All they need to do is not actively oppose the United State in the Security Council. I think we deserve that, especially from an "ally".

You avoided the point completely Drake. Allies are equals. France and germany do not support our Iraq policy, and feel it might harm their interests. in that respect, they have every right to oppose it and don't owe the US anyting. What the US "expects" of them means nothing. If france and germany think this goes against their fundamental interests, they should block it anywhere it comes up. Inaviding Iraq is not some little issue: it might very well have very serious consequences for all, so every state has the right , ally of the US or not, to do what they think is best for them oevrall. As I have said again and again: The Frencha d Germans do not, in this case, owe us anyything are are wholly correct to oppose this policy.

What was the point of this paragraph? I don't see what any of this has to do with Iraq.

Just like in Afgnanistan, the war in Iraq has an aftermath, a time of occupation. As we see today, the Germans are able to undertake such missions (hence the fact they are about to take command in Afghnanistan). Japan has no such capabilities. For that simple reason, germany matters far more to Iraq policy than far off Japan.

Does condecension make you feel like a big man? Frankly, I'd be more impressed if you could provide a coherent argument that manages to stay on topic. (Do you know how to do that?)

Very coherent arguments were given: whether you were willing to listen to them is different. You speak of staying on topic: the thread is about KOREA! for god's sake. Don't demand one stay "on topic" when your "on topic" isn't even what the thread is supposed to be about. All Poly discussions wander; deal with it and keep up.

When I said they were inconsequential, it was in regards to the current issue of Iraq. You were the one who brought the historical references into play, not I, so don't attack me for something I never said.

Read above first, then:
If they are inconsequential, then why have your panties in a twist over their "disloyalty"? If something has no meaning, you pay it no attention. You seem to be paying a lot of attention, which makes me wonder why.

I will let the acrimony go: it is not worth the time. So let me make my point again,, for the alst time today:

Germany and France owe us nothing. They are states with their own interest, and with the right (and reponsibility to their people) to carry them out. Just as the admin. has failed to convince me, they have failed to convince France and Germany. Invading Iraq has the potential to create far-reaching consequences, consequesnces for which france and Germany may suffer. It is not then just a question of rubber stampping edicts from Bush. And the reason I took offense at your points is because this osrt of emotion driven politics that you seem to be showing at this moment is the sort of corosive force we do not need at this time of crisis. The world is tense enough without fundamental alliences built on shared values, history, and aims being destroyed because one side demand "loyalty (it is not due) form others and the sulks when it does not get it.

[Drake Tungsten]

You speak of staying on topic: the thread is about KOREA! for god's sake. Don't demand one stay "on topic" when your "on topic" isn't even what the thread is supposed to be about. All Poly discussions wander; deal with it and keep up.

I won't "deal with it". Boris and I were having a decent discussion about loyalty amongst allies and you came along and ruined it with some rambling argument about Germany being more important on the global stage than Japan.

If you want to discuss that topic, then start a new thread. I'm not talking about it anymore, especially with someone who argues as badly as you do. I don't have the time to decipher what you're saying, only to have you reverse yourself two posts later...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

If Iraqi jets showed up over Florida, don't you think we'd have a right to shoot them down?

Not if we had fought and lost a war against Iraq and had no-fly zones imposed on us to prevent the slaughter of innocent Floridians...

These hypothetical situations are getting you nowhere, Boris.

You yourself said that Iraq was violating the ceasefire. NOWHERE in the ceasefire agreement did Iraq agree to the No-Fly Zones. The U.S. unilaterally imposed them on Iraq without UN sanction. They weren't part of the deal, to be blunt. So the U.S. VIOLATING Iraqi airspace was a de facto violation of the ceasefire, as violating another nation's airspace and then FIRING on their defensive measures is considered a hostile act.

I'm going to make it very simple for you. When a SAM launcher turns on its radar and lights up an air plane it is making a very explicit threat. It is threatening to destroy the plane and kill the pilots. The pilots have two options 1) Ignore the threat and risk being killed and having their plane destroyed. or 2) Destroy the SAM site and eliminate the threat.

I'm going to make it simple for you as I did above: The No-Fly Zones weren't agreed to by Iraq, they weren't part of the ceasefire. The U.S. had no right under the UN-sanctioned ceasefire to establish them. They did so unilaterally, without Iraqi consent, after the ceasefire was signed. So here's option 3: Don't go violating another country's airspace.

Had Iraq agreed to the No-Fly Zones in the ceasefire, it wouldn't be an issue. But since they did not, it is clearly the U.S. that violated the ceasefire.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Oerdin is right the whole freakin' purpose of the no fly zones was to keep Saddam and his psychopath son from sending in their gunships to mow down Kurds and the rival Muslims to the South.

Great! Too bad Iraq never agreed to them in the ceasefire. Too bad establishing them was not sanctioned by the UN, but done as unilateral action by the U.S.

The only mistake in this whole charade was not killing Saddam the first time.

Certainly, it was a terrible mistake. But our blunder in the past does not excuse us making a war up to satisfy the desire for revenge of the president or of oil barons to seize Iraqi fields.