Usually speaking, the American soldiers get very little punishment since Japan and Korea have no legal power against them. Just recently, an American soldier raped a 67 years old women in Korea!!! Japan and Korea governments are in a great disadvantage in this legal power thing with American soldiers.

That actress has many many many many rich or powerful boyfriends. She is a smart girl and knows how to manipulate men, though.

personally i feel for the victims.. i mean americans also in the philipians were horribly mistreated.. the infamous batan death march and japanese usually didn even take prisoners.. but i wonder if it really is in our political interest to just say have mr bush go to japan and lecture its government on its war crimes.

for one thing there is some token japanese assitance in iraq.. but and maybe we can try to get more japanese troops if we are more friendly to them idoubt it but its a thought. also japan serves as a local watch for on china for the usa monitering your countries developments and progress..

but bottom line is it really is kind of strange.. we have this massive engagement against radicle islam all around the world.. we have had a number of human rights abuses.. what kind of sense would a move like this really make? people like enigma might just throw the atom bombs back in our face and say ' you have no right to speak.' well thats what i think,, lol..

__________________
www.myspace.com/crusade7

pass it on.

She is one of my favourite actresses. I don't give two hoots about her personal life.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Depends on the point of view. From personal experience, there were Koreans calling for the execution of the two US soldiers who accidentally killed two Korean young women in 2005. The problem was the road was not secured as dictated by the USFK agreement when American military went on an exercise and the vehicles did attempt to stop. However, the furor was such that President Roh called the American military forces, in general, "murderers" but later retracted that statement. But the bigger problem is that local men in Japan and Korea are not even prosecuted by the authorities. It is the general view that the women "had it coming because of the clothes she wore" or were "prostitutes" or something else. So, why the difference.

With the story you gave, the acting 8th US Army Commander did give an apology. I will let the authorities determine the facts before making any judgements. In the US, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is not the case in either Korea, Japan, or even China.

I speak out in my own way in my own time. No one determines when I should speak or even speaks for me.

Iraq: from my perspective in 1998, there were only three options with Iraq: let the UNSC resolutions go and Iraq go free, continue with the failed containment policy, or invade. The first two options give countries like NK and Iran more maneuvering room to excerpt the NPT or other agreements. This is what you are seeing now due to an ineffective UN. The last option also has drawbacks as evidenced with a divided UNSC. If you looked at it logically, invasion was the optimal choice. But the operation has been plagued by many mistakes and miscalculations on the adminstration's part.

Iran: I am not in favor of invading Iran under the present circumstances. The EU, China, and the US agree that Iran should not have military nuclear capability but disagree on the details on how to implement that plan. If Iran wants peaceful nuclear power, it should submit to IAEA authority as dictated by the NPT. They are not even doing that, which leads to the question: what are they hiding? The other problem I have giving Iran even civilian nuclear power is that sooner or later, military technology will develop. That will destabilize the region faster than you can possibly imagine. But again, the US will still get blamed because we "did not invade when we had the chance."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the US have virtually withdrawn from the NPT. Don't you think it would be rather arrogant of them to point the finger at any other nation who looked as though they may not be prepared to sign it in the first place.

As if the invasion hasn't 'de-stablised' the region?

When one unilaterally takes on the role of 'world sheriff' then one has to take the brickbats with the posies.

This cool, if not brazen, attitude of 'the US will do as it pleases as and when it pleases' often found in the posts on here is one which puzzles me. When did this attitude first start to arise amongst the general populace? Or aren't you on of that kind?

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Also, in what way had the 'containment policy' failed?

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

1. The US has not withdrawn from the NPT or from the NSG (Nuclear Supply Group), but from the ABM treaty, namely for missile defense from a rogue nation with a nuclear weapon.

2. The invasion did, does, and will continue to have its drawbacks, but given the 13 year history of Saddam Hussein defying IAEA and the IAEA placing Iraq equal to the weapons inspectors (a first), it was the only logical course of action. Those that were against the invasion also had an economic interest to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Of course, the US gets criticized for not doing the job on Hussein in 1991, but then again, there was that UNSC Resolution stated to only drive out Iraqi forces from Kuwait. But then again, proponents want the US involved in every disaster that has occurred including Durfar, Liberia, Haiti, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, etc, but we don't want the US to be the "world's sheriff" now do we? Of course, we could look armed conflics from 1946-2005 and see just how many of those countries needed UN approval before enacting on those situations. Are you going to criticize them as well, or just play fancy foot?

So, does the US need the UN or does the UN need the US, enigma?

3. Theodore Roosevelt, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick"

This
provides a summary of why the containment policy failed. The paper does not call for an invasion, but analyzes why the policy failed in the long run. You are now seeing those fruits of discontent with Iran and NK.

For a start, I don't admire Theodore Roosevelt. The little I know of him seems to convince me that he was a glory-hunting war-monger. However, as an aside he did, by proxy, bring much joy to children around the world, including myself, who loved and hugged their 'Teddy' bear. No-one is all bad!

Do you realise that many around the world felt that Hussein's invasion of Kuwait wasn't exactly earth-shaking? If it gave a kick up the bum to the rulers of Kuwait and their feudal grip on their country it might have even have been a good thing. As you support the intervention I will assume that you also support the corrupt and slave-owning royal family of Kuwait!

As for the UN, we all need it, including the continued membership of the USA. Although, I do object to the US coercing and bribing other nations to get them to support their basically selfish policies.

For all its perceived superiority and determination to mould the world to suit its image, the US, if it could rid itself of Bush and the greedy ruling elite, could be an overwhelming force for good within the UN. An unselfish de-facto world governing body which doesn't put another nation's interrests before their own, is something I, and many others, long for. It isn't impossible!

I can only hope that such as yourself, well-educated and articulate, would bring pressure to bear upon your elected representatives to become a more benign super-power.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Hudson, as for the website you referred me to, I rarely access this type of referential material as I find that I am invariably directed to partisan piffle which is an insult to my intelligence.

Sadly, this was the case with yours!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Pray tell, just how was the United State Peace Institute a partisan site?

I do not always agree with their works, but the organization does provide excellent insight on world affairs from a variety of views some of which I do not agree with and some that I do.

Quoting Chomsky or similar individuals does not make you more smart, it makes you more partisan.

Before you start criticizing a political figure you know nothing about, it would be prudent to at least read the biographical account of the man. He did institute reform in the Civil Service, gave citizenship to the native Americans and Puerto Ricans, established the endangered species act, the National Parks, and other projects while holding on to the American Enterprise spirit. In that time, it was expected for a male to join the military ranks to help establish one's career. This includes the Founder of Australia, Lachlan Macquarie, who served as part of the United Kingdom.

You may have a point with the Kuwaiti Royal family, however, the Kuwaiti Royal family is the legitimate government of that country. You have no right to state that Iraq was correct overthrowing that government for purely economic reasons (repayments from the Iran-Iraq War) while criticizing the US for doing the same bloody thing. That I find is completely hypocritical on your part.

Considering the UN is following that same slippery path as the League of Nations, I do not have the same hope as you do, but keep dreaming and watching Star Trek.

Every nation does and will put its own interest ahaead of others, including your own no matter who is the Prime minister. This fallacy only adds to your allusion about a "world government" and the belief of a Utopian Society. President Bush was following exactly what President Clinton's objectives. On July 22nd, 1998, or there abouts, President Clinton gave a speech that indicated the US would want regime change, and if necessary, military action, if the UNSC resolutions were not met.

I will agree or disagree as I see fit, and in accordance with the electoral law and nothing more.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil