Comments on: Making Beijing an indecent proposal?

By: buy tamiflu without

buy tamiflu without — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:24:05 +0000

buy tamiflu without

You are invited to visit some relevant pages about buy tamiflu with no perscription tamiflu

By: red bone hound dog

red bone hound dog — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:29:58 +0000

red bone hound dog

In your free time, take a look at some helpful info about video poker strategy cards

By: free play video slot machine

free play video slot machine — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:36:29 +0000

free play video slot machine

Please take a look at some information in the field of site:www.zteam.com Free Online Slots

By: free party poker

free party poker — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:30:52 +0000

free party poker

You are invited to take a look at some information on partypoker download

By: roulette

roulette — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:58:59 +0000

roulette

In your free time, visit the pages on gambling

By: wsop winners

wsop winners — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:40:33 +0000

wsop winners

In your free time, visit some information in the field of strip poker free online poker games

By: usinkorea

usinkorea — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:10:44 +0000

First, when I wrote the first post, I was not describing technically an “invasion” situtation. China moving into an imploding NK would not be defined by China as an “invasion” just as it hasn’t by other nations in similar events.

I think the chances of China invading NK in the traditional sense is close to zero. Moving in if NK begins to implode quickly is a very different matter.

Now, to nulji maripkan ,

“Coward” is your word, not mine. It betrays where your heart and mine are at, not mine. You can flap your gums in Korean nationalism all you want, but it is distorting your analysis of what I wrote more than I distorted it.

To nulji maripkan and bluejean,

Nulji moved the discussion toward degrees of resistance. He was claiming China would be foolish to invade North Korea because the Korean people would naturally rise up and throw the Chinese out with a resistance on the scale of the Vietnamese against the US.

And although bluejeans is right that some Koreans did resist the Japanese colonization of Korea, there is no way it was close to the scale of the Vietnamese.

I also don’t agree a whole lot with bluejeans on the idea that in Korea’s case, it was the government caving into the Japanese while the population at large resisted. For every example of Korean organized resistance (in country), we can find more periods of relative peace and groups of Koreans that worked within the colonial system.

I hate discussions about collaboration, because I think they are too simple and nobody has a right to pass judgement on the people living in those times who didn’t live through them themselves.

But, Korean society as a whole did not provide a strong, consistent, prolonged active resistance to the Japanese

By: lirelou

lirelou — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:02:15 +0000

ZhangFei,
Perhaps the four freedoms did not survive the War because FDR did not survive the war. Or perhaps the post-war period was not what had been envisioned in 1939-41. By the way, you are partially incorrect in your statement on the European powers reoccupying their colonies. Britain’s “reoccupation” of the Indian subcontintent was only to allow a reasonablly peaceful transition to independence (and partition). Of course, Burma, Malaya, and Singapore were other matters.

By: Zhang Fei

Zhang Fei — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:27:41 +0000

Let me point out also that it is conservative, not neo-conservative, to rely upon a policy that threatens and delivers force in order to bend other nations to our will. A policy that relies on talk alone isn’t conservative - it’s detente-oriented or, in a word, Kissingerian. It’s a policy of managing perceived American decline as part of a program for euthanizing American influence abroad. Note that it is not particularly neo-conservative to use lofty language in order to weld international coalitions together to achieve national objectives. Roosevelt used the Four Freedoms speech in order to try to pursuade other countries to actively join in the fight against Fascism (with mixed success) - so that Uncle Sam would not have to carry so much of the weight (among the non-Communist anti-Fascist forces) against the enemy. Once the war ended, the Four Freedoms receded into history, its exhortatory purpose served. The European powers re-occupied their colonial holdings, one after another.

By: Zhang Fei

Zhang Fei — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:17:56 +0000

China attacks foreign countries for several reasons - to prevent invasions from those countries (either by those countries or by third parties), as a punitive expedition or to annex its territory. In North Korea’s case, the first and third rationales don’t hold. And as far as a punitive expedition goes, for what is China punishing North Korea? It is creating a counterweight to American power in Northeast Asia that is tying down US troops on the Korean peninsula. For China, that is a positive, not a negative.

As for the supposed Chinese fear that North Korea’s aggressive body language will lead to American acquiescence to South Korea’s and Japan’s nuclearization, I doubt the Chinese actually share this fear. The difference between China and both Korea and Japan combined is that China is a continental-sized country, and its two neighbors are not. China can annihilate both countries and have nukes left over. Besides, it makes no sense for the US to agree to the nuclearization of either Japan or South Korea. It changes the whole security dynamic and Uncle Sam’s strategic calculations. It’s not clear whether the US would place its troops on the soil of a nuclear Japan or South Korea, for fear that they may get embroiled in a nuclear conflict not of Uncle Sam’s choosing.

Thomas Barnett is a dimwit. In East Asia, Uncle Sam is in the role of Great Britain. We are the offshore balancer. China plays the role of Napoleonic France, with a Grand Armee, and seemingly limitless resources with which to pursue the greater glory of Han empire. Barnett is suggesting that we ally with China, the modern equivalent of Napoleonic France, rather than Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, all of which are the equivalent of the continental powers that resisted France. It goes against basic strategic principles to ally with the strong against the weak, unless you’re set upon annexing the weaker states to your own territory. China is not a status quo power when it is strong. Having seen Chinese cities with my own eyes and compared their amenities to a number of other Asian cities, I can say for a fact that China is no longer the sick man of Asia.