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

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.

Bull****. 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

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.