Shoulder-to-shoulder with SK? Since SK has been very critical about US NK policy you could hope that US changed its policy to the better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or maybe South Korea could change its policy for the better?
<strong>I think most of the animosity was because of the election. The opposition party won on an anti-US platform (further proof that the US is isolating itself.) ... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your logic is so fuzzy it's laughable. If it's proof of anything it's proof that an anti-US platform gets votes. Could this be the S. Korean version of the "Southern Strategy"? Maybe the headline should be "Racist Canidate Wins in S. Korean Election"
Your logic is so fuzzy it's laughable. If it's proof of anything it's proof that an anti-US platform gets votes. Could this be the S. Korean version of the "Southern Strategy"? Maybe the headline should be "Racist Canidate Wins in S. Korean Election" </strong><hr></blockquote>
Both of you are right. It is proof of US isolationism . . . much of it our fault and much of it due to other reasons such as racism from Skoreans (though if we had South Korean camps filled with 'rude' soldiers tramping around and ogling our wimin folk we'd probably wants them out!) and general anti-Americanism
Both of you are right. It is proof of US isolationism . . . much of it our fault and much of it due to other reasons such as racism from Skoreans (though if we had South Korean camps filled with 'rude' soldiers tramping around and ogling our wimin folk we'd probably wants them out!) and general anti-Americanism</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please tell me how the US is isolating itself from S. Korea. I'm sure you're logic will be just as fuzzy.
Ossam ad Arafat are not innocent people trying to work for a living when plane flies into the window. A difference you blur with your moral relativism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The people were dancing because the attacks were a blow to the United States, not individual Americans. A difference you blur with your rash generalizations.
Your logic is so fuzzy it's laughable. If it's proof of anything it's proof that an anti-US platform gets votes. Could this be the S. Korean version of the "Southern Strategy"? Maybe the headline should be "Racist Canidate Wins in S. Korean Election" </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, "proof" in these arguments is usually fairly relative. The fact that being anti-US gets votes is "support" for the thread's general point.
And I don't think they have AA in South Korea, so you're right (the racist bastards! )
I found this article interesting. It seems no one can make, or even wants to make, a coherent argument as to why the US should maintain troops in S Korea. And now with the Cold War over, China is no worse of a "friend" than the French ever were.
The people were dancing because the attacks were a blow to the United States, not individual Americans. A difference you blur with your rash generalizations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I found this article interesting. It seems no one can make, or even wants to make, a coherent argument as to why the US should maintain troops in S Korea. And now with the Cold War over, China is no worse of a "friend" than the French ever were.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not true at all. China is no friend. They want to inslave Tiwan for example. There human rights record is on the scale of the Taliban. If the US were to pull out of Korea it would send a message to China (the experts say) to move in and take over the pacific. Not what we or they want.
Poeple accuse Bush of being and "isolationist". A real isolationist would pull out of the Pacific and leave it to China.
I can't get to that article because I have cookies off.
Or maybe South Korea could change its policy for the better?
[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. There are more indications of SK changing its policies for what you would call the worse. And if you read the article its clear that US have moved since the new year.
Why don´t you want GWB to get any applaus from me when he deserves it. Why must you try to ruin it for him
That's not true at all. China is no friend. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, maybe. But what I said was that China is no worse of a "friend" than the French ever were. Plus, looking at China?s history I don?t believe she has expansionist ambitions. And even if they did, I don?t believe it would be such a bad thing. I, for one, wouldn't mind if they were to move into Malaysia and Indonesia and bring some "communist" order there.
Regarding Taiwan. I?d mirror the strategy of China in N Korea. Supply Taiwan with nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to hurt China where it hurts most. And should the Chinese become a little too wise, these will make them all the more wiser.
Please tell me how the US is isolating itself from S. Korea.<hr></blockquote>
The according to the Framework, the US was supposed to provide two reactors, which would double NK's energy suppy, while also moving toward "full normalization of political and economic relations." Oh, this was to happen by this year. Instead of fulfilling our obligations according to the Framework, Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, after being told to 'provide a justification for a war,' specifically with Iraq, came up with the 'Axis of Evil' label for Iraq and Iran, with Korea as an afterthought.
As a result, the Bush Admin saw an opportunity to use NK as a justification to try to create a missle-defence system that is so flawed it is insane anyone believes it is a possibility (see <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030107-bmd01.htm"; target="_blank">glabalsecurity.org</a>).
Kim Jong Il's actions make a lot of sense. With the Bush admin openly calling for 'regime change' in Iraq, and with one of the goals of an occupied Iraq to be a forward position against Iran, Kim Jong Il is justified in seeing that he is next. The problem is that North Korea is a much more sensitive issue than either of the other two, showing how clumsily the Bush Admin has handled relations with that state. Leaving major policy decisions to a speechwriter is very stupid. And now we are seeing the results.
France has always been on the side of USA since centuries, and even if France is an irritating friend it's still a friend.
China is obviously not a friend of USA. As said Scott there is a lot of problems with that countrie, but it's a giant and we have to deal with him, weather we like it or not.
[quote]Regarding Taiwan. I?d mirror the strategy of China in N Korea. Supply Taiwan with nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to hurt China where it hurts most. And should the Chinese become a little too wise, these will make them all the more wiser. <hr></blockquote>
It will be a bad idear, it look like a declaration of war for China. It will lool like the Cuba crisis in the sixties.
If china supplies nukes for north korea, then supply south korea with nukes.
France has always been on the side of USA since centuries, and even if France is an irritating friend it's still a friend.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say China is not a friend. And you say France is. I disagree. With friends like that, we don't need enemies.
France did not help in the fight against Hitler. She did not help in the fight against the Soviets. She bucked out of NATO to pursue her own imperialist designs, and still does. She pioneered appeasement of the Islamic world. In fact, she set the gold standard that others are now following. And the list goes on..
China can be a great friend, ally, and a trading partner. And I hope people don?t listen to the scare mongering of the leftist liberals. China today is what India was 20 years ago. The ?communist? there are on their last legs, and are ?communist? practically in name only. In fact, they?re probably just as communist today as are the French. In a generation?s time, China is going to be the number one CAPITALIST nation on this globe. And I believe where Europe with its Arabized Left (in academia, politics, economics) is sinking even more to the left and into economic irrelevance, China, Russia, India, are, and will continue to be moving more and to the right. And where France finds its interests with the socialist Muslim regimes antagonistic the US, the others just mentioned will be finding their interests more and on our side opposing the Islamization of the globe. It isn?t coincidental that many Europeans were cheering 9/11 in their pubs. They know they can?t compete with the US, and any set back to US is an advantage for them. It?s also no coincidence that these terrorists haven?t stuck Europe. Theirs is an obvious alliance.
Both of you are right. It is proof of US isolationism . . . much of it our fault and much of it due to other reasons... </strong><hr></blockquote>
The recent wave of anti-Americanism was touched off by an incident where a couple of American soldiers accidentally killed two Korean school girls who were walking past a U.S. Army convoy on a training mission on June 13. The Korean girls were struck by a transport vehicle. Two U.S. soldiers were charged with negligent homicide, tried in a military court and acquitted.
Another incident that touched off an earlier wave of anti-Americanism happened during the Salt Lake City Olympics. A lot (most?) of what's happening over there doesn't have much to do with your theory.
The according to the Framework, the US was supposed to provide two reactors, which would double NK's energy suppy, while also moving toward "full normalization of political and economic relations." Oh, this was to happen by this year. Instead of fulfilling our obligations according to the Framework, Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, after being told to 'provide a justification for a war,' specifically with Iraq, came up with the 'Axis of Evil' label for Iraq and Iran, with Korea as an afterthought.
As a result, the Bush Admin saw an opportunity to use NK as a justification to try to create a missle-defence system that is so flawed it is insane anyone believes it is a possibility (see <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030107-bmd01.htm"; target="_blank">glabalsecurity.org</a>).
Kim Jong Il's actions make a lot of sense. With the Bush admin openly calling for 'regime change' in Iraq, and with one of the goals of an occupied Iraq to be a forward position against Iran, Kim Jong Il is justified in seeing that he is next. The problem is that North Korea is a much more sensitive issue than either of the other two, showing how clumsily the Bush Admin has handled relations with that state. Leaving major policy decisions to a speechwriter is very stupid. And now we are seeing the results.
What twisted history. The dirty little secret of all of this, which the anti-American left can't get right, is that the US was fulfilling is obligation. Oh and you left out the SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM THAT NORTH KOREA HAS! What an oversight on your part. But wait ... that's all Bush's fault right. Push them into a corner and made build nukes. It's all on him.
Stupid liberal anti-American nonsense trash. Why do I bother?
But I?m still not getting where the US is "isolating" itself from the rest of the world?
But you'd only enforce it if Japan went nuclear.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really believe that? Because if you do, no one else does. I'm the one who started the thread that suggested the United States bomb North Korea's reactor. You're just blind I guess.
Comments
<strong>...
Shoulder-to-shoulder with SK? Since SK has been very critical about US NK policy you could hope that US changed its policy to the better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or maybe South Korea could change its policy for the better?
[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>I think most of the animosity was because of the election. The opposition party won on an anti-US platform (further proof that the US is isolating itself.) ... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Your logic is so fuzzy it's laughable. If it's proof of anything it's proof that an anti-US platform gets votes. Could this be the S. Korean version of the "Southern Strategy"? Maybe the headline should be "Racist Canidate Wins in S. Korean Election"
<strong>
Your logic is so fuzzy it's laughable. If it's proof of anything it's proof that an anti-US platform gets votes. Could this be the S. Korean version of the "Southern Strategy"? Maybe the headline should be "Racist Canidate Wins in S. Korean Election"
Both of you are right. It is proof of US isolationism . . . much of it our fault and much of it due to other reasons such as racism from Skoreans (though if we had South Korean camps filled with 'rude' soldiers tramping around and ogling our wimin folk we'd probably wants them out!) and general anti-Americanism
<strong>
Both of you are right. It is proof of US isolationism . . . much of it our fault and much of it due to other reasons such as racism from Skoreans (though if we had South Korean camps filled with 'rude' soldiers tramping around and ogling our wimin folk we'd probably wants them out!) and general anti-Americanism</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please tell me how the US is isolating itself from S. Korea. I'm sure you're logic will be just as fuzzy.
<strong>
Ossam ad Arafat are not innocent people trying to work for a living when plane flies into the window. A difference you blur with your moral relativism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The people were dancing because the attacks were a blow to the United States, not individual Americans. A difference you blur with your rash generalizations.
<strong>
Your logic is so fuzzy it's laughable. If it's proof of anything it's proof that an anti-US platform gets votes. Could this be the S. Korean version of the "Southern Strategy"? Maybe the headline should be "Racist Canidate Wins in S. Korean Election"
Well, "proof" in these arguments is usually fairly relative. The fact that being anti-US gets votes is "support" for the thread's general point.
And I don't think they have AA in South Korea, so you're right (the racist bastards!
I found this article interesting. It seems no one can make, or even wants to make, a coherent argument as to why the US should maintain troops in S Korea. And now with the Cold War over, China is no worse of a "friend" than the French ever were.
<strong>
The people were dancing because the attacks were a blow to the United States, not individual Americans. A difference you blur with your rash generalizations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What rash generalization?
<strong>] <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26423-2003Jan8.html"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26423-2003Jan8.html</a>;
I found this article interesting. It seems no one can make, or even wants to make, a coherent argument as to why the US should maintain troops in S Korea. And now with the Cold War over, China is no worse of a "friend" than the French ever were.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not true at all. China is no friend. They want to inslave Tiwan for example. There human rights record is on the scale of the Taliban. If the US were to pull out of Korea it would send a message to China (the experts say) to move in and take over the pacific. Not what we or they want.
Poeple accuse Bush of being and "isolationist". A real isolationist would pull out of the Pacific and leave it to China.
I can't get to that article because I have cookies off.
<strong>
Or maybe South Korea could change its policy for the better?
[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. There are more indications of SK changing its policies for what you would call the worse. And if you read the article its clear that US have moved since the new year.
Why don´t you want GWB to get any applaus from me when he deserves it. Why must you try to ruin it for him
<strong>
That's not true at all. China is no friend. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, maybe. But what I said was that China is no worse of a "friend" than the French ever were. Plus, looking at China?s history I don?t believe she has expansionist ambitions. And even if they did, I don?t believe it would be such a bad thing. I, for one, wouldn't mind if they were to move into Malaysia and Indonesia and bring some "communist" order there.
Regarding Taiwan. I?d mirror the strategy of China in N Korea. Supply Taiwan with nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to hurt China where it hurts most. And should the Chinese become a little too wise, these will make them all the more wiser.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
Please tell me how the US is isolating itself from S. Korea.<hr></blockquote>
The according to the Framework, the US was supposed to provide two reactors, which would double NK's energy suppy, while also moving toward "full normalization of political and economic relations." Oh, this was to happen by this year. Instead of fulfilling our obligations according to the Framework, Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, after being told to 'provide a justification for a war,' specifically with Iraq, came up with the 'Axis of Evil' label for Iraq and Iran, with Korea as an afterthought.
As a result, the Bush Admin saw an opportunity to use NK as a justification to try to create a missle-defence system that is so flawed it is insane anyone believes it is a possibility (see <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030107-bmd01.htm"; target="_blank">glabalsecurity.org</a>).
Kim Jong Il's actions make a lot of sense. With the Bush admin openly calling for 'regime change' in Iraq, and with one of the goals of an occupied Iraq to be a forward position against Iran, Kim Jong Il is justified in seeing that he is next. The problem is that North Korea is a much more sensitive issue than either of the other two, showing how clumsily the Bush Admin has handled relations with that state. Leaving major policy decisions to a speechwriter is very stupid. And now we are seeing the results.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Well, maybe. But what I said was that China is no worse of a "friend" than the French ever were.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here you are again.
France has always been on the side of USA since centuries, and even if France is an irritating friend it's still a friend.
China is obviously not a friend of USA. As said Scott there is a lot of problems with that countrie, but it's a giant and we have to deal with him, weather we like it or not.
[quote]Regarding Taiwan. I?d mirror the strategy of China in N Korea. Supply Taiwan with nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to hurt China where it hurts most. And should the Chinese become a little too wise, these will make them all the more wiser. <hr></blockquote>
It will be a bad idear, it look like a declaration of war for China. It will lool like the Cuba crisis in the sixties.
If china supplies nukes for north korea, then supply south korea with nukes.
<strong>
France has always been on the side of USA since centuries, and even if France is an irritating friend it's still a friend.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say China is not a friend. And you say France is. I disagree. With friends like that, we don't need enemies.
France did not help in the fight against Hitler. She did not help in the fight against the Soviets. She bucked out of NATO to pursue her own imperialist designs, and still does. She pioneered appeasement of the Islamic world. In fact, she set the gold standard that others are now following. And the list goes on..
China can be a great friend, ally, and a trading partner. And I hope people don?t listen to the scare mongering of the leftist liberals. China today is what India was 20 years ago. The ?communist? there are on their last legs, and are ?communist? practically in name only. In fact, they?re probably just as communist today as are the French. In a generation?s time, China is going to be the number one CAPITALIST nation on this globe. And I believe where Europe with its Arabized Left (in academia, politics, economics) is sinking even more to the left and into economic irrelevance, China, Russia, India, are, and will continue to be moving more and to the right. And where France finds its interests with the socialist Muslim regimes antagonistic the US, the others just mentioned will be finding their interests more and on our side opposing the Islamization of the globe. It isn?t coincidental that many Europeans were cheering 9/11 in their pubs. They know they can?t compete with the US, and any set back to US is an advantage for them. It?s also no coincidence that these terrorists haven?t stuck Europe. Theirs is an obvious alliance.
<strong>
Both of you are right. It is proof of US isolationism . . . much of it our fault and much of it due to other reasons... </strong><hr></blockquote>
The recent wave of anti-Americanism was touched off by an incident where a couple of American soldiers accidentally killed two Korean school girls who were walking past a U.S. Army convoy on a training mission on June 13. The Korean girls were struck by a transport vehicle. Two U.S. soldiers were charged with negligent homicide, tried in a military court and acquitted.
Another incident that touched off an earlier wave of anti-Americanism happened during the Salt Lake City Olympics. A lot (most?) of what's happening over there doesn't have much to do with your theory.
<strong>
No. If there's a law then it must be enforced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you'd only enforce it if Japan went nuclear. With Korea you think that talking is the solution. Ergo: double standard.
<strong>
The according to the Framework, the US was supposed to provide two reactors, which would double NK's energy suppy, while also moving toward "full normalization of political and economic relations." Oh, this was to happen by this year. Instead of fulfilling our obligations according to the Framework, Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, after being told to 'provide a justification for a war,' specifically with Iraq, came up with the 'Axis of Evil' label for Iraq and Iran, with Korea as an afterthought.
As a result, the Bush Admin saw an opportunity to use NK as a justification to try to create a missle-defence system that is so flawed it is insane anyone believes it is a possibility (see <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030107-bmd01.htm"; target="_blank">glabalsecurity.org</a>).
Kim Jong Il's actions make a lot of sense. With the Bush admin openly calling for 'regime change' in Iraq, and with one of the goals of an occupied Iraq to be a forward position against Iran, Kim Jong Il is justified in seeing that he is next. The problem is that North Korea is a much more sensitive issue than either of the other two, showing how clumsily the Bush Admin has handled relations with that state. Leaving major policy decisions to a speechwriter is very stupid. And now we are seeing the results.
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What twisted history. The dirty little secret of all of this, which the anti-American left can't get right, is that the US was fulfilling is obligation. Oh and you left out the SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM THAT NORTH KOREA HAS! What an oversight on your part. But wait ... that's all Bush's fault right. Push them into a corner and made build nukes. It's all on him.
Stupid liberal anti-American nonsense trash. Why do I bother?
But I?m still not getting where the US is "isolating" itself from the rest of the world?
[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
...
Plus, looking at China?s history I don?t believe she has expansionist ambitions.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What history book are you reading :eek: !!!
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
But you'd only enforce it if Japan went nuclear.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really believe that? Because if you do, no one else does. I'm the one who started the thread that suggested the United States bomb North Korea's reactor. You're just blind I guess.
<strong>
But I?m still not getting where the US is "isolating" itself from the rest of the world?</strong><hr></blockquote>
"You're either with us, or against us."