| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
<Herzen> Japan could KICK ***
<FreeTrade> backes = backed
<Herzen> If it wanted too
<Herzen> It has the economy
<Herzen> the people
<Herzen> and the technology
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - Japan isn't supporing the us in iraq because its a "just war"
<Herzen> Japan could be a counterweight to China iun the region
<JohnXXIV> the good thing about economic development in Asia is that it will mean less people will want to come to North America to emigrate.
<Herzen> For awhile anyways
<Kurt2> when I think of Japan I think of no space at all left to put anything
<FreeTrade> Right now we protect Japan, but our foreign policy under Bush is wise, we want south Korea and Japan to take more of their primary responsibility for defense. and build their own military stronger.
<JohnXXIV> Japan's population is declining
<FreeTrade> Disbelief, I didnt say it was a Just war.
<Herzen> FreeTrade, Koizumi has been working for years to expand the JSDF
<bud``> Ukraine could kick ***
<FreeTrade> I said it can not fight offensibly in any war whether its just or not.
<Disbelief> Herzen - the same fundamental conditions that existed 60 years ago exist today: Japan's military is entirely dependent upon a foreign source of oil. cut that off, and its only a matter of time before they would be defeated.
<IamKing> Disbelief: it's a cost/benefits analysis...so yes, it is exactly that, twit...we pick our battles and change other countries by force if we deem necessary
<FreeTrade> I then said in Iraq it aids us in other ways, but that was a subtext.
<FreeTrade> But if you want to know the truth I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt from strategic and not emotional reasons that Iraq was very important as a country to go to war against.
<Disbelief> IamKing - 'twit' huh? alright then. "pick our battles" indeed. elective wars of phoney pre-emption of two-bit weak dictators is rather choosy, i agree.
<FreeTrade> But thats my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the issue we were debating about Japans constitutional restrictiosn to fight.
<Herzen> Disbelief, Japan today doesn't have to worry about their lsos of foreign sources of oil
<IamKing> Disbelief: yes, we CHOSE to take out Iraq because we could...the people there supported a regime change more than any other ME country while still being the most favorable in general to the US
<Herzen> because the fundamental dynamic of japanese society, the japanese government is different
<Herzen> and fundamentally speaking, japanese-western relations are ENTIRELY different then what they were
<Herzen> Japan isn't militant, and it is a 60 year old ally of the west
<Herzen> They won't lose their source of foreign (western) oil
<FreeTrade> Herzen, I think you would find most American Republicans supportive of Japan becoming stronger militarily and lifting the chains from them after 50 years. I think the only place we would want to hold back Japan would be in nuclear weapon production.
<Disbelief> Herzen - the fundamental is that they're dependent upon oil that they don't have. and i DO think they're worried, especially about china becoming the #2 consumer of petroleum, and surp***ing them.
<FreeTrade> Other then that I think our government would support a new constitutional amendment to do away with the one you mentioned.
<Null_Ptr> i dont know why japan shouldnt have nukes if peons like france can have them.
<Herzen> China would flip the **** out
<Herzen> same with Korea
<Herzen> and Taiwan
<Herzen> if Japan removed article 9
<FreeTrade> The fact is if we ever have problems with China which I hope we never do, Japan would or could be a key ally in a war.
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - we're obligated by treaties to oppose any country from acquiring nuclear weapons. "non-proliferation" doesn't only apply the "good guys"
<IamKing> Null_Ptr: only because France was our ally during WWII
<Null_Ptr> IamKing: france is a peon. do not deny the obvious.
<IamKing> and they acquired their nukes during the period following WWII
<Herzen> France has nukes because of their relationship with NATO and America during the COld War
<FreeTrade> Herzen we already told South Korea we are removing troops (Signicant numbers) and we want you take a more forward role in your own defense.
<KoooK> Japan has nuclear weapons production capability. they are ready to go at a push of a button.
<FreeTrade> Disbelief, I am well aware of that.
<haku111> south korea got nukes or not?
<FreeTrade> Thats why I mentioned it.
<Herzen> KoooK, what sup?
<suna_> then cry;P
<IamKing> Null_Ptr: well, France as a nation are ***holes, but that's besides the point...they already have them, and we're not going to war with France just because they have them...they have no intentions of using them against US allies
<KoooK> Herzen: not much
<FreeTrade> but it is not only non proliferations itself, we dont want Japan to have nukes because it and china could get in arms race.
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - japan's economic dependence on foreign energy is much more of a threat than any military action upon it.
<FreeTrade> Nuclear arms race
<suna_> people are always so mean to france, poor hairy frenchies
<FreeTrade> It would also threaten N. Korea which is already paranoid as hell.
<FreeTrade> And Russia wouldnt like it.
<bud``> ive been to france, loved it..
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - China already possesses the nuclear armaments to obliterate japan. the race is over.
<bud``> but the people are definitely wierd
<Null_Ptr> on the up-side, japan could spend russia china and north korea combined into the ground. worked for reagan.
<Herzen> China could obliterate Japan
<Herzen> but U.S. would obliterate China in response
<Herzen> legally speaking
<FreeTrade> Disbelief, there is truth to your last statement. the fact that it is a nation which is dependent entirely on imports presents its own strategic problems.
<FreeTrade> but the UK was though not as much, similar, in ww2
<Null_Ptr> a nation of trade *****es.
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - well yes, we continued to supply Britain. Japan was cut off from its oil supply. The virtually ***ured that a war would happen.
<Disbelief> Germany attempted to do to the UK exactly what we did to Japan.
<FreeTrade> Disbelief, well lets say that ***ured a lot of debate about that topic with Japan in ww2. but yes that element was part of it.
<Disbelief> and that itself nearly got the US into the war.
<bud``> germany has offensive submergables all up and down the scandanavian coast that attacked UK supply lines
<FreeTrade> No it was the bombing of Hawaii which got us into the war, we had a pacifism population of about 80%
<Disbelief> i think it was the absolute fundamental. Japan could tolerate US intransignence to its imperial expansion so long as the fuel for that expansion wasn't disrupted. once it was, war was inevitable.
<FreeTrade> which next to Sweden is Incredibly high.
<FreeTrade> Americans historically have been more anti war than most nations.
<FreeTrade> Most powerful nations.
<bud``> FreeTrade the official story yeah, unnoficially the USA attacked all axis economically
<FreeTrade> We had to be talked into ww1 we really didnt want to come
<Disbelief> i woudln't say "anti-war" by any stretch. anti-engagement in foreign wars, yes.
<FreeTrade> we had to be talked into and bombed into ww2, we really didnt want to come.
<FreeTrade> And then we had truman, who unilaterally decided to go to war in Korea
<FreeTrade> Now at the time it was a stupid decision. But as history would have it, it actually was good with the benefit of hindsight.
<Disbelief> Frankly, Germany had done worse prior to Pearl Harbor. As many americans (mostly civilians) were killed in unrestricted U-Boat warfare. Japan's attack at least carried the legitimacy of an attack upon a military installation.
<CometBaby> I heard stories about the bombing of Pearl Harbor. My grandmother said that they were listening to the radio and heard it on the radio. She said the next morning Grandpa enlisted. She said she was crying and begging him not to go because she thought he would get killed.
<bud``> the germans were busy forcing their way east.. wtf should usa care, let the other allies fight.. then we built up a western coalition, drew the bulk of germans from the eastern front, allowing the russians to actually make ground and victory
<CometBaby> He was furious because of Pearl Harbor.
<FreeTrade> Disbelief there was a lot more than fuel which was at issue, Japanese imperialism and theatening takeovers of other asian countries was a serious problem as well.
<FreeTrade> Japan was am imperial nation which was exporting war and expropriating land.
<FreeTrade> At one time it was the master of Vietnam, long before the french. And also we cant forget manchuria
<Disbelief> FreeTRade - apparently not a serious enough problem for the ENTIRE DECADE prior to the US involvement in WW2 for the US to reconsider trade with them.
<CometBaby> I know that it is a racist thing to say this .. I am just repeating here. But she said Grandpa said, "I'm gonna go kill some Japs"
<Disbelief> Japan was colonizing china long before the War, and the US was well aware.
<FreeTrade> Disbelief, I repeat, the US unlike today was extremely pacifist.
<FreeTrade> Extremely so
<FreeTrade> When ww2 broke out we had no capable armies
<Disbelief> CometBaby - and ? is that admirable or something ?
<FreeTrade> none
<CometBaby> and there were probably a lot of Americans who felt that way after Pearl Harbor
<FreeTrade> When ww2 broke out we had no guns
<FreeTrade> our soldiers trained with wooden fake rifles
<CometBaby> Disbelief. No, just honest. I am not approving or disapproving .. just repeating.
<FreeTrade> It tood FDR to his credit, 2 years to ramp up the war machine.
<FreeTrade> To start building ships and arms.
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - "pacifist" is a hard sell. i think simple isolationism was more of a motivator. At any rate, america has neither character nowadays.
<bud``> every top br*** overseeing the pacific fleet foresaw pearl harbor happening
<FreeTrade> FDR had a fascination with the navy above all else.
<Null_Ptr> had he started sooner i wonder if any of the axis allies would have been detered
<FreeTrade> Disbelieve pacifism means not wanting to go to war, resisting war.
<FreeTrade> We were pacifist
<FreeTrade> I dont think we were isolationist which usually involves trade.
<FreeTrade> and the very fact you bring fuel into the debate on the war in Japan proves we were not isolationist
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - pacifism is more of a rejection of war in concept, not wanting to have to fight is not pacifism.
<FreeTrade> but we were pacifist
<FreeTrade> Yes we rejected it
<Disbelief> not really. the US actively supported the UK's war effort
<FreeTrade> We had a belief from our founding fathers strongly ingrained in the american psyche, "Not to get involved in foreign wars"
<Disbelief> if the US were truly "pacifist" our actions wouldn't be to support the war efforts of others.
<FreeTrade> "Avoid Foreign Entanglements"
<FreeTrade> "Dont get involved in European wars"
<KoooK> US didnt support the UK much at all
<KoooK> US held on to the neutrality
<FreeTrade> This was the ethos of americans prior to ww1 and ww2 as we became more of a military power.
<Disbelief> koook - that's demonstrably false. the US' supply of the UK was what allowed it to keep going.
<bud``> KoooK we granted almost ever request for warships and heavy artillery, years before our actual official involvement
<Disbelief> bud - indeed.
<FreeTrade> After ww2 and korea it was all over, we then had the hawks vs the doves in our government
<KoooK> Disbelief, nope
<KoooK> bud``, nope
<bud``> KoooK yes
<Disbelief> the Lend-Lease act is a great example of exactly a "foreign entanglement"
<FreeTrade> The Korean war in particular because it was a cl***ic example of how US disarmament during peace time killed 10k soldiers in Korea.
<bud``> KoooK all strategy tho, let the enemy drive east.. ignoring the quiet unnoficial strategy of the west
<FreeTrade> And Truman was warned we would sustain heavy loses immediately in the war at around 10k and it came true.
<KoooK> lend-lease came many years later and wasnt any type of gift to the UK. the conditions were very hard. and the material crap.
<KoooK> follow the changes to the neutrality act
<FreeTrade> The Republicans were the leading anti war party at the time. by the end of Vietnam we became the war party but we were successful in our wars and we were careful and we fought them without retraints.
<KoooK> in 37 and 39 and what happened in 42
<Disbelief> FreeTrade - "leading anti-war party" ? hahaha
<Herzen> **** Anti-War
<FreeTrade> Dibelief, yes, almost every war prior to the gulf war was started by a democratic president. or joined by one.
<Disbelief> "careful and fought them without restraints" is a direct contradiction
<Herzen> War is a part of life, War is natural and War is inevitable in today's world
<FreeTrade> And I support FDR for his joining of ww2
<Swigert> hey
<IamKing> "Computer Glitch Lets Prisoners Out Early" http://www.wlns.com/global/story.asp?s=4004197&ClientType=Printable
<Herzen> 'Anti-War Party' is just immature
<FreeTrade> I think that was essential to our own security
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
football
metal
undernet deicider
politics
rock
|
|