Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 40 of 40
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    The U.S. embargo cut off all oil to Japan. It wasn't "p.o.'d"--the regime wanted to survive. As JM says, Japan might as well have attacked us--it was the better choice.
    Better than what? deciding to colonize asia?
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,939
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    Better than what? deciding to colonize asia?

    Better than giving up its dream of widening its sphere of influence and becoming energy independent. Close enough.

  3. #28
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,679
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]So even w/o the bomb japan made a huige mistake, seems like the nks are following the same path. Unfortunately there are too many Americans who have refused to wake up.[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
    there is a school of thought that thinks that Japan and Germany made no mistake at all...

    With their industrial base destroyed, they were able to replace it with new factories, new equipment, new technology, and a younger work force living under a new government that supported growth and new ideas.

    America was forced to work with old factories and equipment that it couldn't afford to replace.

    They almost destroyed the British and American economies in the 60's and 70's...Britain took the longest to recover, America has ceased being a manufacturing country that creates wealth and is now dependant on Japan's manufacturing and economic base (remember who is buying all that US debt)

    Remember Japan and their Sonys, Mitsubishis, Samsungs, Nikons, etc.?...what has America got that compares nowadays...even IBM mfg is now owned by Chine

    I don't think that Japan lost in the long run

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DeeZee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5,369

    Talks

    Quote Originally Posted by Locoman
    Pavlovian conditioning doesn't work with NK. We've tried it before and it has failed. Its very naive to think it will all of suddenly work now.

    Sanctions have basically starved the people but the government has not yeilded. More sactions just means that more people will starve to death but we'll be right where we were with a nuclear NK.

    Getting them to six party talks seems like the best thing to do in my humble estimate.
    Getting them to six party talks seems like the best thing to do in my humble estimate.

    I think this is key. I would love to see China or Japan to lead the talks and for the US etc. "to have their back".

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    7,698

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    there is a school of thought that thinks that Japan and Germany made no mistake at all...

    With their industrial base destroyed, they were able to replace it with new factories, new equipment, new technology, and a younger work force living under a new government that supported growth and new ideas.

    America was forced to work with old factories and equipment that it couldn't afford to replace.

    They almost destroyed the British and American economies in the 60's and 70's...Britain took the longest to recover, America has ceased being a manufacturing country that creates wealth and is now dependant on Japan's manufacturing and economic base (remember who is buying all that US debt)

    Remember Japan and their Sonys, Mitsubishis, Samsungs, Nikons, etc.?...what has America got that compares nowadays...even IBM mfg is now owned by Chine

    I don't think that Japan lost in the long run
    Yeah, germany and japan went to war so that the US could rebuild their countries after they lost. Are you on drugs?
    I have one firm belief about the American political system, God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat P.J. O'Rourke





  6. #31
    The devil is an angel too
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,327
    Quote Originally Posted by sandan
    Yeah, germany and japan went to war so that the US could rebuild their countries after they lost. Are you on drugs?
    I'd say that the school that teaches that Germany and Japan went to war so they could get their countries destroyed and then rebuilt is anything but a school of thought.


    I say we have ourselves a good nominee to Most Preposterous Concept of the year.

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DeeZee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5,369

    That is just insane

    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    there is a school of thought that thinks that Japan and Germany made no mistake at all...

    With their industrial base destroyed, they were able to replace it with new factories, new equipment, new technology, and a younger work force living under a new government that supported growth and new ideas.

    America was forced to work with old factories and equipment that it couldn't afford to replace.

    They almost destroyed the British and American economies in the 60's and 70's...Britain took the longest to recover, America has ceased being a manufacturing country that creates wealth and is now dependant on Japan's manufacturing and economic base (remember who is buying all that US debt)

    Remember Japan and their Sonys, Mitsubishis, Samsungs, Nikons, etc.?...what has America got that compares nowadays...even IBM mfg is now owned by Chine

    I don't think that Japan lost in the long run
    The reason why Germany and Japan were rebuilt was mainly do to the lessons learned from the Treaty of Versailles.

    What’s next?

    The US government planed the 911 attacks so we could co to war with Iraq.

    Opps some other radical beat you to that one

  8. #33
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,199
    Quote Originally Posted by fsp

    "If the U.S. increases pressure upon the DPRK, persistently doing harm to it, it will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of a war

    You do realize that NK is already at war?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  9. #34
    banned
    Reputation: Chief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,480

    this just in

    Quote Originally Posted by Locoman
    Clinton was willing to give light water reactors -that don't allow for the production of nuclear bombs if NK was to take their graphite reactors offline -these are the kind that do allow for the production of nuclear weapons. Bush stopped shipment on these light water reactors leaving NK with only reactors that facilitate making nuclear weapons.

    So how did Clinton make a "horrific" mistake?

    Now in 2003 Bush claimed he would not tolerate a nuclear armed NK... but what did he do? He ensured that they kept their nuclear bomb facilitating reactors.

    And don't be a bonehead saying I blame America just because I take issue with Bush's policies. You have to be an idiot to not be able to tease these two concepts apart. You'd have to be completely brainwashed to think Bush IS America. You'd have to be... like yourself.

    And that "If people like you were around 80 yrs ago, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese" is complete weaksauce. You might get a pat on the back from a toothless wasted fool at your local tavern, but most with an IQ above 5 would look at you with pity.




    .
    Republicans are going out of their way this morning to knock the Clintonís administrationís 1994 deal to allow the North Koreans to build two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for haulting the development of nuclear weaponry. (The light-water reactors were, under the terms of the agreement, supposed to be used for providing non-military energy, though intelligence officers now believe that North Korea secretly used them for military purposes.)

    Donald Rumsfeld, no shrinking violet, has not been among the Republicans attacking the Clinton administration this morning. Why not?

    According to the Guardian, Rumsfeld was a director of a company called ABB, which won the $200 million contract to build the light water reactors in North Korea at the time the contract was awarded. And, according to Fortune, Rumsfeld personally lobbied the Clinton administration on behalf of ABB.

    None of this completely exempts the Clinton administration from responsibility, but it certainly makes the aesthetics of the episode worse for the Republicans, and makes it more difficult for the administration and its allies to bash Democrats for letting North Korea get nukes.

    Isn't that interesting.....

  10. #35
    Art is Resistance
    Reputation: djcrb9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenK
    I'd say that the school that teaches that Germany and Japan went to war so they could get their countries destroyed and then rebuilt is anything but a school of thought.


    I say we have ourselves a good nominee to Most Preposterous Concept of the year.

    That's a definite possibility. Sandan's posts remind me a lot of jason's... except sandan can at least spell.

  11. #36
    fsp
    fsp is offline
    obey!
    Reputation: fsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    You do realize that NK is already at war?
    I do, yes. You do realize that was a quote by Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly? Maybe you should inform him.

  12. #37
    The devil is an angel too
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,327
    Quote Originally Posted by djcrb9
    That's a definite possibility. Sandan's posts remind me a lot of jason's... except sandan can at least spell.
    I think you got it mixed up, JM01 is the one saying that Japan and Germany went to war to get destroyed and rebuilt. Sandan is the one making sense.

  13. #38
    Who are the brain police?
    Reputation: Locoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,021
    Very intersting. How can this stuff not stick to Rumsfeld? Its just like how he visited Saddam after Saddam committed atrocities against his own people and against Iran.

    And its funny that they try to blam Clinton for giving them nukes when they already had them. Clinton it seems only wanted NK to stop using the nukes they had that could make weapons to using the light water kind that don't make weapons materials.

    And it doesn't seem like things ever got the point where NK even got a new reactor.

    Check out this timeline...
    Chronology of nuclear weapons development in North Korea:

    1993: North Korea says it has quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty amid suspicions that it is developing nuclear weapons. It later reverses that decision.

    1994: North Korea and U.S. sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.

    Aug. 31, 1998: North Korea fires a multistage over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, proving it can strike any part of Japan's territory.

    May 25-28, 1999: Former Defense Secretary William Perry visits North Korea and delivers a U.S. disarmament proposal.

    Sept. 13: North Korea pledges to freeze long-range missile tests.

    Sept. 17: U.S. President Bill Clinton eases economic sanctions against North Korea.

    December: A U.S.-led consortium signs a US$4.6 billion contract for two safer, Western-developed light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea.

    July 2000: North Korea again threatens to restart its nuclear program if Washington doesn't compensate for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants.

    June 2001: North Korea warns it will reconsider its moratorium on missile tests if the Bush administration doesn't resume contacts aimed at normalizing relations.

    July: State Department reports North Korea is going ahead with development of its long-range missile. A Bush administration official says North Korea conducts an engine test of the Taepodong-1 missile.

    December: President Bush warns Iraq and North Korea that they would be "held accountable" if they developed weapons of mass destruction "that will be used to terrorize nations."

    Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says.

    Oct. 4: A visiting U.S. delegation says North Korean officials revealed that the country has a second covert nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement -- a program using enriched uranium. North Korea later denies this.

    Oct. 16: U.S. officials say they have discovered evidence of a nuclear weapons program in North Korea.

    Oct. 26: Bush, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung meet at an Asian-Pacific regional summit in Mexico and agree to seek a peaceful end to the North's nuclear problem.

    Nov. 11: The United States, Japan and South Korea halt oil supplies to North Korea promised under the 1994 deal.

    Dec. 12: North Korea reactivates nuclear facilities at Yongbyon that were frozen under the 1994 deal with the United States.

    Dec. 13: North Korea asks the U.N. nuclear watchdog to remove monitoring seals and cameras from its nuclear facilities.

    Dec. 14: The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency urges North Korea to retract its decision to reactivate its nuclear facilities and abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    Dec. 21: North Korea removes monitoring seals and cameras from its nuclear facilities

    Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    Jan. 28: South Korean envoy Lim Dong-won meets North Korea's number two leader Kim Yong Nam. Lim says North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has received the letter from President Kim Dae-jung that suggests Pyongyang should reverse its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Feb. 3: The U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signs a "prepare to deploy" order that will send 24 bombers to the Pacific region.

    Feb 4: Pyongyang describes the U.S. move as an attempt "to crush us to death."

    Feb. 5: North Korea's official news agency says the nation has reactivated its nuclear power facilities.

    Feb. 12: The 35-member IAEA board of governors declares North Korea in breach of atomic safeguards and refers the case to the U.N. Security Council.

    Feb. 18: The (North) Korean People's Army threatens it will abandon the 1953 Korean War armistice if the United States continues its military buildup in the region.

    Feb. 24: North Korea test fires a land-to-ship missile into the sea between the Korean Peninsula and Japan.

    Feb. 26: The United States says North Korea has reactivated its five-megawatt nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.

    March 10: North Korea test fires another surface-to-vessel anti-ship missile into the Sea of Japan, or East Sea as it is known in South Korea.

    March 29: Pyongyang says it will resist all international demands to allow nuclear inspections.

    April 5: North Korea says it won't recognize any ruling made by the U.N. Security Council.

    April 12: In a dramatic shift, North Korea backtracks on its calls for direct 'face-to- face' talks with Washington, saying it will consider any format for dialogue if the United States is prepared to make a "bold switchover."

    June 2: Group of Eight world leaders meeting in France accuses North Korea of undermining non-proliferation agreements.

    June 9: North Korea lifts its war of words with the United States to a new level, saying it may now need nuclear weapons to combat what it describes as a hostile threat from Washington.

    July 12: A senior U.S. official says North Korea has begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods, suggesting the communist country intends to produce nuclear weapons.

    July 16: China ups the pressure on North Korea to join mulitlateral talks to end the nuclear standoff during a visit to Pyongyang by a special envoy from Beijing. "In-depth" talks take place.

    July 26: A Japanese newspaper report, citing North Korean and Japanese sources, says North Korea is prepared to conduct a nuclear test unless the U.S. responds positively to its proposals to end the nuclear row.

    August 1: North Korea announces it will take part in six-nation talks on the crisis. No date or venue for the meet is set.

    August 2: Pyongyang warns the United States not to discuss its suspected nuclear weapons program at the U.N. Such a move would be "a grave criminal act" that was "little short of a prelude to war," Pyongyang says.

    August 12: Washington announces that six-way talks aimed at ending the crisis will take place in Beijing on August 27. The U.S., North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia will take part.

    August 18: North Korea repeats a demand that Washington sign a non-aggression pact with North Korea, and says it could not dismantle its nuclear deterrent force if the United States did not abandon its "hostile policy" toward Pyongyang.
    The Who - Glittering Girl
    Ween - The Grobe
    Yellowman - Strong Me Strong
    all your base are belong to us

  14. #39
    fsp
    fsp is offline
    obey!
    Reputation: fsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Locoman
    Very interesting...
    Nice. That might have been good to start a new thread with.

  15. #40
    tcp
    tcp is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    Good catch.

    Very true, Japan needed the liebensraum as they too were on an imperialistic path...
    Um, sorry to be nitpicky...but this means (direct translation) "room of love". Perhaps you meant "lebensraum"...room to live.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •