CPH-R
Topic Author
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:28 pm

Picked this one up over at DU.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s910658.htm

The Japanese Parliament has approved plans to send ground troops to Iraq to assist in post-war reconstruction. It will be the first deployment of Japanese troops since World War II to a country where fighting is still going on.

The BBC reports the vote in favour of the deployment represents a major political victory for the Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, who had staked his political future on getting it through.

Opposition parties fought bitterly against the bill, saying it breached the Japanese constitution. The constitution forbids the use of military forces, except for defence.

--------
I have a photo from Yahoo showing the fighting, but the lousy forum parser keeps messing it up, so you'll have to do without.
 
airmale
Posts: 7125
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:27 pm

I lost all respect for the Japanese when they endorsed the war, and for the fact that they're loosing their cultural values to capitalist greed, they're going to be in deep shit by sending their troops, another wannabe/me too nation along with Qatar, Spain and Poland all Johnny come lately's.
.....up there with the best!
 
DoorsToManual
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:28 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:54 pm

assist in post-war reconstruction

What's done is done. Although I too opposed the war, like many others here and offline, I think helping out in post-war Iraq, while not necessarily "admirable" is not a bad thing either.

Ok, the US has created one hell of a mess against the wishes of many, but I think we have a role here: I know this line has been trotted out already, but HUMANS ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF HELP.

In that sense, I feel holding your head up high and repeating the mantra "I told you so" and ignoring this, just because it's not your mess, is WRONG.

Time to forget the massive arguments, ACCEPT that the US has got its way and join in with trying to help out THE PEOPLE as much as possible.

The US Administration didn't plan sh*it with regards to the 'post-war' situation, so we are going to have to all help out. How long are we going to have arguments for, while people die on the streets? It's pointless - we made our opposition clear, now let's just get on with trying to sort something out.

[Edited 2003-07-26 13:57:21]
 
DoorsToManual
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:28 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:55 pm

p.s. to assist in post-war reconstruction

That's their only role, and I'm glad they are helping out.
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:35 pm

I lost all respect for the Japanese when they endorsed the war, and for the fact that they're loosing their cultural values to capitalist greed, they're going to be in deep shit by sending their troops, another wannabe/me too nation along with Qatar, Spain and Poland all Johnny come lately's.

Damn, I'm sure the Japanese are just completely distraught over what a blindly Islamic, 16 year old from Pakistan thinks about their foreign policy. I'm sure you would rather have the Japanese make a contribution to some Palestinian causes, maybe Hamas, Hezbollah, or perhaps Al-Asqa. After all, the only people whose lives matter in your eyes are Muslims... Who cares about the Christians who were tortured in Iraq, right? If capitalist greed involves saving entire groups of people from ethnic cleansing...then damn I want to be greedy. But to you it seems, the only thing that ever matters is your religion, and whether someone who is Muslim is being harmed...Apparently, a very notable terrorist thinks the same way as well.
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
airmale
Posts: 7125
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:53 pm

No I never said I care only about Muslims, and the 16 year old bit is funny.
.....up there with the best!
 
bobrayner
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 8:03 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:51 am

I have to agree with DoorsToManual here.

Iraq needs help. It's ridiculous to claim sympathy for Iraq against an unjustified invasion (largely engineered to win votes/prestige halfway around the world), then criticize anybody who tries to clean up the consequences of that invasion.

Or is your anti-americanism stronger than your charity?

We could spend days debating how this infringes the Japanese contitution, but it's hardly de rigeur for states to follow their constitution to the letter nowadays, and they mean well by doing it.

and for the fact that they're loosing their cultural values to capitalist greed
What values are they losing from this? And are they going drilling for oil? I think not. Perhaps they might hope for some reconstruction deals, but you should be crowing over any contract that isn't awarded to Bechtel or Halliburton.

all Johnny come lately's
What has Pakistan done for international relations recently?
Cunning linguist
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:56 am

Jcs17,

Shame on you for saying that Airmale's statement reflects a 16-year old mentality. It's an insult to 16-year olds everywhere!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:27 am

They'll assist in "post-war reconstruction." HArd to do when the war is still going on, isn't it.

Oh, I forgot, it ended May 1st, at the moment George Bush landed on the aircraft carrier. My bad.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:32 am

Damn, I'm sure the Japanese are just completely distraught over what a blindly Islamic, 16 year old from Pakistan thinks about their foreign policy.

And this coming from another wannabe 16 year college kid from texas? He being 16 years old, islamic and from Pakistan has nothing to do with the question in hand.

Keep up your fabulous contribution to this forum smart alec.


In Arsene we trust!!
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:38 am

Damn, I'm sure the Japanese are just completely distraught over what a blindly Islamic, 16 year old from Pakistan thinks about their foreign policy.

Just as distraught as many of us are (not) over a blindly jingoistic teenager from the United States, who really doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about.
 
airmale
Posts: 7125
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:49 am

I keep forgetting most members here are in their teens, why do i even bother. Next time I'll check their profiles before responding.

heres one Japanese I really like



what a doll Big grin
.....up there with the best!
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:57 am

I lost all respect for the Japanese when they endorsed the war, and for the fact that they're loosing their cultural values to capitalist greed, they're going to be in deep shit by sending their troops, another wannabe/me too nation along with Qatar, Spain and Poland all Johnny come lately's.

Japan, the Republic of Poland, Spain, and Qatar have lost all respect for Pakistan...if they ever had any for that country to begin with. Japan, Poland, Spain, and Qatar are sending troops to assist in the reconstruction of a war-torn nation. What is Pakistan doing!?

Pakistan on the other hand sponsors terrorist activities (in India), builds WMDs to threaten India, and hasn't been very productive in their so-called help with the US to find Bin Ladin. Now I'm convinced he is being sheltered there.

Don't ever insult Poland, it's a better country than Pakistan will ever be, and many Pakistanis come to Poland seeking jobs and education...as they do throughout Europe and the US.

And I think Japan has done a great job in keeping their cultural values throughout the modern day world (ie capitalism)

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
LONG LIVE POLAND OVER PAKISTAN!
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 2:43 am

First off JCS is a 20 year old college kid, I met him, I know it.
--
I agree with JCS, I don't think anyone is losing sleep over Airmale losing respect for the Japanese. I don't the Japanese could care less on what most of you people think. Because most of you people are completely uneducated and don't know a damn thing on what you are talking about. Some of you people are so god damn ignorant and close minded you deserve to be punched. It's sad you some of you can't see this.
Open you minds people.

[Edited 2003-07-26 19:46:06]

[Edited 2003-07-26 19:54:20]
Go big or go home
 
airmale
Posts: 7125
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:43 am

The way most of you have responded seems as if my views set your ass hair on fire, losing sleep seems to pale in comparison.
.....up there with the best!
 
JAL777
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:13 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:56 am

Speaking of losing cultural values for capitalist greed...






Please... take your nonsense elsewhere. Since when is Japan's constitutional requirement for using military for self defense purposes a Japanese cultural value? It was forced by the American administration (and not such a bad idea).
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:11 am

Boeing4ever:

"Japan, Poland, Spain, and Qatar are sending troops to assist in the reconstruction of a war-torn nation."

Are they? Are you sure they aren't simply sending troops to favour the US, so some day, they can get something back?

"What is Pakistan doing!?

Pakistan is doing exactly the same thing India has done, or Germany or France: they are rejecting sending THEIR troops to Iraq as long as these would be under US command. They are only willing to send troops under a 'UN-umbrella'.

"Don't ever insult Poland..."

Why not?

"....it's a better country than Pakistan will ever be, and many Pakistanis come to Poland seeking jobs and education...as they do throughout Europe and the US."

Actually, I believe there were more Polish illegal immigrants in Europe outside Poland than there are Pakistanis.

"And I think Japan has done a great job in keeping their cultural values throughout the modern day world (ie capitalism)"

Since when is capitalism a 'cultural value'? Hara-kiri is a 'cultural value', and that's what they are doing by placing their troops in Iraq directly under Donald Rumsfeld's command.

"LONG LIVE POLAND OVER PAKISTAN!"

Pathetic.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
airmale
Posts: 7125
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:12 am

The cultural value part is something I have been noticing about Japan for years it has nothing to do with sending troops, I respected Japan for the fact they had a non-interfereing stance to war related issues buty since 9/11 everyone seems to be wanting to be made to feel important in some way so their countries are discussed in the news around the world daily, I remeber sapin was like non existant in Asian press till the Iraq war as for Poland ...., as far as Pakistan is concerned they were thurst into the lime light due to their geo-strategic position vis a vis Afghanistan and India, they are now trying their best to not get involved in the post war so called "stabilising forces" which already the Iraqi's are calling a play of words for "occupation forces", and quite rightfully so, Pakistan has nothing to do with the Iraq issue, they are not are neigbours, they never suported Pakistan on their issues with India even though they're Muslim so why should Pakistan care, yes Humanitarian assistance is another issue which the country is willing to send people for.

If the Japanese are now so world affairs concious, how come they are not running any major aid organisations around the world? why are they all western? maybe that is something Japan needs to focus on and iIm sure Asian aid agencies will be better recieved in some regions. Thats a part I would love to see Japan play, they were my most favoured nation once upon a time so I do feel disappointed seeing them involved in this Iraq thing.
.....up there with the best!
 
JAL777
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:13 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:19 am

Japan's "cultural value" was imposed by the United States.

Let me remind you that Japan is a democracy!
 
DoorsToManual
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:28 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:16 am

my views set your ass hair on fire

1) Last time I checked, I didn't have any ass hair (although it was only a superficial check)

2) errr, that's it
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:15 am

What hasn't been mentioned is that Japan's participation in Iraq is as much about North Korea as it is Iraq.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:28 am

I lost all respect for the Japanese when they endorsed the war, and for the fact that they're loosing their cultural values to capitalist greed, they're going to be in deep shit by sending their troops, another wannabe/me too nation along with Qatar, Spain and Poland all Johnny come lately's.

What does Japanese endorsement of the Iraqi war have to do with capitalist greed? Anyway, capitalism has turned Japan into the world's 2nd richest nation.....perhaps Pakistan (given that it remains mired in abject poverty) could learn a thing or two from Japan.

Japan should be commended for providing troops to a troubled unstable region.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:15 am

Japan should be commended for providing troops to a troubled unstable region.

Yes, it's about time someone else sent soldiers over to get killed other than American GI's. It'll make a nice change in the news for once.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:37 am

Yes, it's about time someone else sent soldiers over to get killed other than American GI's. It'll make a nice change in the news for once.

Not sure if you're serious or tongue-in-cheek Alpha, but since Japan relies on mideast oil far more than any other Western power, they damn well should be there in force, and in quantity.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:38 am

Not sure if you're serious or tongue-in-cheek Alpha, but since Japan relies on mideast oil far more than any other Western power, they damn well should be there in force, and in quantity.

So, you admit it was about oil, then? Else why should we damn well have had our forces there, Yyz717?

And I was seriously tongue-in-cheek, for your information.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:48 am

So, you admit it was about oil, then?

No. The US does not rely heavily on Mideast (let alone Iraqi) oil, hence how could it be about oil? It was about suppressing terrorism and providing freedom to Iraqi's.

As for oil, the US imports more oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela than the Mideast.

seriously tongue-in-cheek

This is a contradiction in terms.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:54 am

No. The US does not rely heavily on Mideast (let alone Iraqi) oil, hence how could it be about oil?

I've always maintained it was not SOLELY about oil, and that oil wasn't the main reason we went to war, but if you SERIOUSLY believe oil politics played absolutely no roll in the war, then you're living in a fantasy world, Yyz717. With a president and a VP neck-deep in oil politics, you can't say oil played no roll in this. It did, there's no doubt about it.

It was about suppressing terrorism and providing freedom to Iraqi's.

The former-more precisely-the assertion that Al Qaeda had ties with Saddam's Iraq, has never been proven, and hs been debunked thorughout the U.S. and most of the world. The latter was not even used as a reason for going to war until after the war started. Again, you're one of the blind who fail to see that we were misled into going to war, and the reasons that were given BEFORE THE WAR have been shown to be, at best, a sham.

And if you don't like my answer of if I was serious or tongue-in-cheek, that's just too bad for you.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:02 am

you can't say oil played no roll in this. It did, there's no doubt about it.

The US does not need Mideast oil. Hence, how could the war be about oil?

The former-more precisely-the assertion that Al Qaeda had ties with Saddam's Iraq, has never been proven

It wasn't just about Al Qaeda. It was also about securing regiome change in Iraq so that the US could pull out of Saudi Arabia. It was also about confronting Iraq about its defiance of UN arms inspectors. It was also about WMD's. It was also about removing a regional Hitler. The war had many impetuses and rationales. Oil was a very small one.




I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:13 am

The US does not need Mideast oil. Hence, how could the war be about oil?

If we don't need it, THEN WHY THE HELL DO WE BUY IT AT ALL? Git a little grip on reality! We buy oil from the region, in case you didn't notice. Sheesh.

It wasn't just about Al Qaeda.

Again, you dismiss what the President himself said-he said there was a clear link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and he said it constantly before the war. I don't recall him mentioning any other groups, and since, in the aftermath of 9/11, even mentioning Al Qaeda would scare the shit out of Americans still on edge, it was a great-if a false-ploy to get people to support the war.

It's PRECISELY about Al Qaeda, because that's what the president himself used as a justification to keep up the military pressure on Iraq. Agian, your total blindness to this fact is breathtaking.

It was also about securing regiome change in Iraq so that the US could pull out of Saudi Arabia.

Again, you're giving reasons THAT WEREN'T EVEN MENTIONED BY THE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE WAR!! They hammered at WMD's; they hammered at the notion that Iraq had a serious nuclear program; they hammered at the Al Qaeda-Iraq link. Then NEVER MENTIONED freeing the Iraqi people; the NEVER MENTIONED using it as a reason to pull out troops from Saudi! Then never mentioned ANY OF THIS-until it became apparent that their misinformation on WHY we were told the war had started were show to be not true.

It was also about confronting Iraq about its defiance of UN arms inspectors.

ROTFLMAO!!!! That's a new one! THE U.S. BASICALLY TOLD THE U.N. INSPECTORS TO GET LOST!!! Where are you gitting this bullshit from? Now you're making things up!! Unbelievable. WE THREW OUT THE INSPECTORS, so we could go to war!!! Good God, this is amazing stuff you're writing!!

. It was also about WMD's.

WHAT WMD'S??? WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? And it's amazing that, the last thing you say, you FINALLY mention what Bush originally said we were going to war about-WMD's-AND WE CAN'T FIND ANY!!!

 Laugh out loud
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:18 am

If we don't need it, THEN WHY THE HELL DO WE BUY IT AT ALL? Git a little grip on reality! We buy oil from the region, in case you didn't notice. Sheesh.


The US sources only a small portion of its oil needs from the Mideast. If the Mideast shut down, oil supplies to the US would continue from elsewhere. The US buys some Mideast oil for several reasons: to diversify the source, to maintain relations and clout with Mideast nations, and because oil is a worldwide commodity...it's hard not to.

I think your caps key must be stuck (again) Alpha 1.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:19 am

It's not stuck, Yyz. But maybe someone can wake you up from this Bush-induced trance you seem to be in. You're making up more stuff to justify the war than even the Administration dare try! It's hysterical, even if it's nowhere near the truth!
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15697
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:24 am

Good, I see you've dropped the dead-end oil angle. It couldn't be supported anyway.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
johnboy
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:49 am

Just a thought, but it seems to me that control of oil is far more valuable than oil itself.
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 11:04 am

No. The US does not rely heavily on Mideast (let alone Iraqi) oil, hence how could it be about oil?

I think it was about regime change and being able to give all those lucrative reconstruction contracts to Bechtel, Halliburton, and other corporations and individuals supportive of the Bush Administration.

It was about suppressing terrorism and providing freedom to Iraqi's.

Free for what? Free to have no electricity, no sense of security, no jobs? Free to have American troops shooting children for throwing rocks? Free to have American troops searching their houses? Free to have American troops make preemptive arrests based upon their possible threat to American interests?

They're now free to watch as Americans bring in our media, our language, our troops, our law, our managers, our corporations, and take over their country, their culture, and their lives.

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and it was we Americans who were being "liberated."

LoneStarMike

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 11:15 am

Free to have American troops shooting children for throwing rocks?

You go a bit far there, LSM. I haven't seen any reports of that,although I did hear a report about 4 GI's being charged with assult or something, against Iraqi prisoners, and are being charged by the U.S. But let's not get carried away.
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 11:59 am

This was the story I was referring to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2951789.stm

LoneStarMike

 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:24 pm

And the article says this:

Brigadier-General Vince Brooks said US marines and special forces soldiers fired at demonstrators on Tuesday after they came under attack from people shooting guns and throwing rocks.

You shoot guns at troops, and I'm sorry, you take a combatants chances. My lack of support for the war be damned here, if our troops come under fire, I expect them to defend themselves.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:32 pm

Are they? Are you sure they aren't simply sending troops to favour the US, so some day, they can get something back?

Politics is dirty, and indeed the world is painted in shades of grey...but they are doing something to help. What is Pakistan up to?

Pakistan is doing exactly the same thing India has done, or Germany or France: they are rejecting sending THEIR troops to Iraq as long as these would be under US command. They are only willing to send troops under a 'UN-umbrella'.

Even under a "UN-umbrella" Pakistan wouldn't send troops.

Why not?

I should have rephrased that..."People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Actually, I believe there were more Polish illegal immigrants in Europe outside Poland than there are Pakistanis.

Where did I bring up illegal immigrants? A little bit of slander coming from you...you must be enraged that someone would dare stick up for a member of the "coalition of the willing" if that's what Dubya has "Dubbed" it. (pun optional)

Since when is capitalism a 'cultural value'? Hara-kiri is a 'cultural value', and that's what they are doing by placing their troops in Iraq directly under Donald Rumsfeld's command.

I SAID, they have preserved cultural values within capitalism. To call them greedy is a bit bold.

Pathetic.

About as pathetic as a Pakistani acting all high and mighty over a nation that is helping to clean up the mess. Regardless of the circumstances of the war, Poland believes that lending assitance to the Iraqi people is necessary...why bomb them and then leave them? Just to get it out of the way, part of their campaign WAS for oil. I believe somone posted a BBC article on it.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

 
bobrayner
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 8:03 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:37 pm

I believe somone posted a BBC article on it.

This?  Smile
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3043330.stm
Cunning linguist
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:44 pm

What hasn't been mentioned is that Japan's participation in Iraq is as much about North Korea as it is Iraq.

And unfortunately still overlooked I see. The mess in N. Korea grows more frightening by the day. I could draw some parallels to Kim Jong Il and Dubya's tough talk. At least in THIS mess, Dubya has clammed up. Now if only someone would shut Il up for just a second and sit him down at a negociating table.  Big grin Not so sure though if Japan needed to send troops to Iraq to get the US's attention on N. Korea. With 37,000 US troops in the south, and the North's suspected Nuclear program (probably more real than Iraq's), Washington is paying attention. Amazing though...they are pursuing the right course and sticking to negociations. Haven't heard any talk of "regime change" in Pyongyang...*yet*.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:49 pm

At least in THIS mess, Dubya has clammed up.

How? Wasn't it about 2 weeks ago he was quoted, in reference to forces still fighting U.S. troops to "bring them on"? Everytime he opens his mouth, it's another PR nightmare. He hasn't learned to clam up, and that's one of the problems.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:50 pm

This?

yeah, that was it! I sort of chuckled at all the protestors accusing Dubya of wanting oil when another Coalition member so blatently went for it!  Laugh out loud Will they get it? If all goes right, their troops along with all other peacekeeping forces, can set up Democracy in Iraq...chances are litigation will keep them from their black, slippery prize. And not many Polish people will cry about that.  Smile

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:52 pm

How? Wasn't it about 2 weeks ago he was quoted, in reference to forces still fighting U.S. troops to "bring them on"? Everytime he opens his mouth, it's another PR nightmare. He hasn't learned to clam up, and that's one of the problems.

I meant the N. Korea mess Alpha1, did you bother to fully read that post?  Big grin

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
 
qatarairways
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:02 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:43 pm

Yyz717,

"Good, I see you've dropped the dead-end oil angle. It couldn't be supported anyway."

I agree with Alpha 1 when he said "I've always maintained it was not SOLELY about oil, and that oil wasn't the main reason we went to war, but if you SERIOUSLY believe oil politics played absolutely no roll in the war, then you're living in a fantasy world, Yyz717. With a president and a VP neck-deep in oil politics, you can't say oil played no roll in this. It did, there's no doubt about it"

Here is one I made earlier... (The article I am reffering to is the one in the Telegraph)



I just wanted to chime in about the issue of oil. It is naive to assume that the US is after OIL for COMMERCIAL reasons but I also think that people are naive assume that oil plays no reason whatsoever even from a security aspect rather than from a commercial one.

On the article, I have given a similar one to some Anti-War activists in my college to make them re-think there accusations that the US wants to profit from the oil. It addresses many of the arguments of people and it shows that the theories that the US wants to profit from the oil, or at least have a cheap supply of oil as flawed and illogical. What the article fails to address is the argument of oil security put forward by many oil experts. There was an excellent BBC program on this issue broadcast in March. Basically it says that Oil sources outside of the Middle East are declining, becoming less reliable and less viable. The only hope is in the Middle East.

The problem is that the Middle East is a fairly unstable region with many regional conflicts (military and social) and so it is not good for the US or any country to rely on these sources. A regime could stop selling oil and grind the world economy to a sudden stop (e.g. Saudi Arabia - 1973 though that time it didn't go far). A regime could use funds from oil to fund terrorism or start wars (e.g. Saddam vs Kuwait and Iran). Regional conflicts could place oil infrastructure and supply in danger as well as pose a threat to American Investors and their assets (e.g. Yemen Civil War). A regime could also use oil as a blackmail similar to North Korea with the nukes.

The situation isn't as bad nowadays, most of the oil is located in the Arabian Gulf and Iraq. The Arabian Gulf is mainly pro-western, with western oil companies investing, with American, British and French military presence and the governments are fairly stable meaning that there isn't much risk of the above scenarios happening.

Iraq though is different. There is a lot of oil production potential in Iraq. Analysts have said that upto 6 million barrels a day could be produced which should help compensate for declining production in the world and keep oil prices stable untill the end of the decade. This is in the interests of the whole world and not the US only. If Iraqi oil is not capitalised we risk increasing oil prices which will hinder economic growth rates and will make the current economic situation worst.

As the article said lifting the sanctions would mean that the US or any other country can get access to abundant Iraqi oil, initially for low prices. Lifting the sanctions though is not a practical solution because with this we risk:

- Saddam getting stonger, getting more weapons and reach the strength of North Korea or maybe even launch another war of aggression.

- Saddam getting in the position to blackmail the west, as well as having the power to distrupt the world oil supply with a press of a button.

That is of course not the answer. Many people who are in Bush's administration today such as Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfield have long campainged that the answer is to remove Saddam by force. Just look at the letters, petitions, interviews etc... that were done by them over the past decade. A key advisor to Cheney has also advised Cheney that the key to "Energy Security" is changing the regime in Iraq.

Removing Saddam would mean that the sanctions can be lifted, allowing the Iraqi people to improve their lives as well as ensuring a secure and reliable oil supply to the world and not the US only and finally they wouldn't have to deal with the risks I mentioned above.

If you think about it, on paper the cause is noble. They want to ensure the security of energy supplies to stabilise the world economy and they don't want to take the easy route and make Saddam stronger because they are thinking of world security. Al-Jazeera even had an arab analysts who said that the US has a right to go after the oil because he understands that it is oil in the sense of security and not oil for commercial reasons and greed.

Oil security is EXTREMELY important to the whole of the world. The world economy is dependant on oil and if anything happened such as the decline of production without suitable short term replacements or something similar this will lead to many problems caused by a declining economy. Poverty, Wars (e.g. Japan's invasion of Manchuria) etc... This alone can be a good reason to go to war but I am not here to debate the rights or worngs, this is for the historians to do in 50 years or so.

If the US come out and say, "We want to remove Saddam because of oil" the world would take it in the wrong way and there would be outrage even in the US. They had to find a cause, frankly it is not too difficult to find anything to accuse to Saddam off. He has all the makings of a Tyrant, lets see he has WMDs, he killed his own people, he launched two wars of aggression and now the magic phrase of "supporting terrorism". After Sept 11 you can get the support of the masses especially in the US just by using the magic phrase without the need of evidence, add to that the resurgence of patriotism in the US.

 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 2:06 pm

I agree in between Alpha1/QatarAirways and yyz717. You can't deny oil will have something to do with it. After all, it's there. And the world does need it...for now, I'm seriously hoping for hydrogen fuel cells, but that's another debate. Let's say the war was 100% legit, there were WMDs, Saddam was killed, and everyone in Iraq is dancing a happy dance...chances are private US firms would still seek oil contracts. And let's not forget Poland in that BBC article.  Big grin

B4e-Forever NEw Frontiers
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:34 pm

Boeing4ever:

" Politics is dirty, and indeed the world is painted in shades of grey...but they are doing something to help."

What they are doing is irrelevant. What is relevant is why they are doing it. Remember this whole war started not because of the 'poor oppressed Iraqi people'. This war started because of accusations of Iraq having WMD's and ties with Al-Qaida. Now that none of these have been proven, we all of a sudden are supposed to believe this is all about 'liberating Iraq'. How naive can one get!

And may I remind you to the already famous BBC article to which you refer to yourself? LONG LIVE UNSELFISHLY POLAND, HEY?

What is Pakistan up to?

Pakistan doesn't want to get involved too much in a region which, by definition, isn't too pro-US. Remember this is not about being pro-Iraq or anti-Saddam, it's about supporting or not the US. Pakistan, along with many other nations, has already said on numerous occasions it is only willing to help under UN supervision. Pakistan sees what has happened in Afghanistan; another 'Mission Accomplished' for Bush but reality is far from that.

"Even under a "UN-umbrella" Pakistan wouldn't send troops."

"The institutional view of the [Pakistani] foreign office is also against sending Pakistani troops to Iraq unless it is under the auspices of the U.N. or the OIC." http://in.news.yahoo.com/030709/43/25tjt.html

"I should have rephrased that..."People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to state not to insult Poland while you virtually don't do anything else than insult Pakistan?

"Where did I bring up illegal immigrants?

You didn't. I did, after you stated "....it's a better country than Pakistan will ever be, and many Pakistanis come to Poland seeking jobs and education...as they do throughout Europe and the US."

"A little bit of slander coming from you..."

So what I say is slander, yet you state Pakistan is better than Poland and many Pakistanis come to Poland to seek jobs and education? You have a weird way of discussing.

"....you must be enraged that someone would dare stick up for a member of the "coalition of the willing" if that's what Dubya has "Dubbed" it. (pun optional)."

I just find it strange of you to state something like "Don't Mess With Poland" before saying Poland is actually better than Pakistan. Don't you think that's a bit of a 'double-standard'? If you don't want people to 'insult Poland', you should give a better example yourself and not insult Pakistan!

"I SAID, they have preserved cultural values within capitalism."

No you didn't. Scroll up and read what exactly you wrote.

"About as pathetic as a Pakistani acting all high and mighty over a nation that is helping to clean up the mess."

My 'Pathetic' statement was in regard to your very childish "LONG LIVE POLAND OVER PAKISTAN!" statement. It's the statement which is pathetic, not the reason for which you wrote it.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
airmale
Posts: 7125
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:04 pm

It will be sad to see the fist Japanese casulty, I hope it never happens, because its going to create unnecessary hatred form iraq and its people in the mind of the Japanese, who in turn will want to turn agressive probably they'll turn anti'Iraqi and start harassing all the Iraqi expats there by deprting them, firing them from jobs, not hiring them , using them for menial low wage jobs, it will eventually lead to dislike of other middle easterners and Mulsims too.

Fifteen members of an amatuer Pakistani Foot Ball team touring Japan disappeared from their hotel in the early 90's, they were never found, its not easy to disappear in Japan, so they must have been accepted and allowed to work somewhere, even if they were discovered they have neither been harassed nor deported or imprisoned, so I hope they remain peaceloving.





.....up there with the best!
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:38 am

What they are doing is irrelevant. What is relevant is why they are doing it. Remember this whole war started not because of the 'poor oppressed Iraqi people'. This war started because of accusations of Iraq having WMD's and ties with Al-Qaida. Now that none of these have been proven, we all of a sudden are supposed to believe this is all about 'liberating Iraq'. How naive can one get!

It's post war...they are assisting in cleaning up. Regardless of how to war started, to turn backs on the Iraqis and just leave them after this is wrong. They are after all human.

And may I remind you to the already famous BBC article to which you refer to yourself? LONG LIVE UNSELFISHLY POLAND, HEY?

The troops are there, not the oil men...chances are more than likely private companies will do the work...after all, Oil is Business. The troops themselves most probably have a greater humanitarian interest.

Pakistan doesn't want to get involved too much in a region which, by definition, isn't too pro-US. Remember this is not about being pro-Iraq or anti-Saddam, it's about supporting or not the US. Pakistan, along with many other nations, has already said on numerous occasions it is only willing to help under UN supervision. Pakistan sees what has happened in Afghanistan; another 'Mission Accomplished' for Bush but reality is far from that.

Not too pro-US...wouldn't it help more than to have as many non-US troops? UN or not, helping out in Iraq isn't a bad thing. And if Pakistanis disagree with the US, then just pull out and let humanitarian aid organizations operate within.
Bush's "Mission Accomplished" is far-fetched...who can deny it, but rebuilding a country into a democracy has been done...look at Germany...and even Japan.

"The institutional view of the [Pakistani] foreign office is also against sending Pakistani troops to Iraq unless it is under the auspices of the U.N. or the OIC." http://in.news.yahoo.com/030709/43/25tjt.html

UN or not, they're too busy messing with India to part with any troops.  Insane

"The presence of an Islamic force will facilitate peacekeeping operations in Iraq," they contended. ...Also from that article...

Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to state not to insult Poland while you virtually don't do anything else than insult Pakistan?

Not so much insulting as accusing, much like Airmale accused Poland of being a "wannabe/me to" state.

You didn't. I did, after you stated "....it's a better country than Pakistan will ever be, and many Pakistanis come to Poland seeking jobs and education...as they do throughout Europe and the US."

And true it is that many Pakistanis come to Poland and the rest of Europe seeking jobs and education...where did I say they came in illegally?

So what I say is slander, yet you state Pakistan is better than Poland and many Pakistanis come to Poland to seek jobs and education? You have a weird way of discussing.

You should proofread...where did I say Pakistan is better than Poland!?  Laugh out loud And how is saying many Pakistanis come to Poland to seek jobs and education a slander. Many Americans go to Oxford, but you don't hear anyone taking offense to that...except maybe Jcs17.

I just find it strange of you to state something like "Don't Mess With Poland" before saying Poland is actually better than Pakistan. Don't you think that's a bit of a 'double-standard'? If you don't want people to 'insult Poland', you should give a better example yourself and not insult Pakistan!

Very well, I'll agree on this, tempers do flare after all. A little additional advice would be to not launch slander such as "wanna be/me to state" in the first place though.

No you didn't. Scroll up and read what exactly you wrote.

This is where you and I will go head to head most often. That is unless you could actually read my statement properly. Let's take a look at it...

And I think Japan has done a great job in keeping their cultural values throughout the modern day world (ie capitalism)

"ie capitalism" came after "Modern Day World"...in other words, "capitalism" is a reference to the modern day world, not a cultural value. There you have it.

My 'Pathetic' statement was in regard to your very childish "LONG LIVE POLAND OVER PAKISTAN!" statement. It's the statement which is pathetic, not the reason for which you wrote it.

So you agree with the reason and hate the statement. Very well.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:24 am

It wasn't totally about oil but it played a large factor when Saddam was perceived to possess own weapons that could have given him a strangehold over the area which,given his Nasser-esque ideals of himself as some great pan-nationalist Arab leader,was quite dangerous.

I do not buy the idea that the US went into Iraq altruisticly to save the Iraqi people.It was a nice propganda off-shoot from the aim of removing Saddam and finding his WMD.
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Landmark Vote Sends Japanese Troops To Iraq

Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:41 am

Boeing4ever:

"It's post war..."

As long as soldiers are dying in Iraq, I believe it is very premature to say it is post-war.

"Regardless of how to war started, to turn backs on the Iraqis and just leave them after this is wrong. They are after all human."

Nobody is talking about turning their backs on the Iraqis. In fact, there are more countries willing to provide help to the Iraqis, including financially, under a UN rule, then there are countries providing or willing to do so under US command. It is the US which is not willing to hand-over Iraq to the UN and thus it is the US which undermines the well-being of the Iraqi people.

"The troops are there, not the oil men......chances are more than likely private companies will do the work"

Yes, we all remember just how 'the troops' guarded the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad while allowing hospitals to be looted.

"...after all, Oil is Business."

It's BIG business, specially when your election campaign has been heavily financed by companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton:

"According to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.

The six companies -- Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp. and Washington Group International Inc. -- contributed a combined $3.6 million in individual, PAC and soft money donations between 1999 and 2002, the Center reported on its news site, CapitalEye.org. Sixty-six percent of that total went to Republicans."(Source:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp)

Interesting to see that the company that contributed the biggest amount of money to the Republicans was the one to 'win' the largest post-war Iraq contract.

Business as usual?

"Not too pro-US...wouldn't it help more than to have as many non-US troops? UN or not, helping out in Iraq isn't a bad thing."

I agree. But not every country is willing to blindly follow Washington on this one. Other foreign troops in Iraq are all under either London or Washington command and the recent history has learned us that the info coming from these two capitals regarding this war, isn't always that thrustworthy: claim of Iraq going nuclear: a lie; claim of Iraq hiding WMD's: not found yet; claim of Saddam's ties with Al Qaida: no proof yet, not even the slightest indication.

"And if Pakistanis disagree with the US, then just pull out and let humanitarian aid organizations operate within."

It's not only the Pakistanis. It's also India or Germany or France. And I'm sure many more countries are willing to send in their troops as long as it would be under UN command with a specific resolution.

"...but rebuilding a country into a democracy has been done...look at Germany...and even Japan."

The big difference with Iraq is that NONE of the pre-war claims about Iraq and the reasons for this war (see above) have been proven.

""The presence of an Islamic force will facilitate peacekeeping operations in Iraq," they contended. ...Also from that article...""

...which clearly indicates that they are willing to send THEIR troops to help and rebuild Iraq devastated by a war they OPPOSSED, but only under a 'UN umbrella'.

"Not so much insulting as accusing, much like Airmale accused Poland of being a "wannabe/me to" state."

After reading the BBC article, Poland being a 'wannabe/me too' state is more a fact rather than a accusation, IMO.

"You should proofread...where did I say Pakistan is better than Poland!?"

Not with those words, no.

"And how is saying many Pakistanis come to Poland to seek jobs and education a slander? Many Americans go to Oxford, but you don't hear anyone taking offense to that"

If you can't see the huge difference between those two statements, than you do need help! Stating that Pakistanis come to Poland to seek jobs and education shows a large amount of negativism regarding Pakistanis, which is exactly why you wrote it as you were angry over what a particular Pakistan user had said about Poland.

"A little additional advice would be to not launch slander such as "wanna be/me to state" in the first place though."

I believe Poland has a 'wannabe/me too' attitude in this war, and I believe Spain's attitude has been very similar, if not worse! If you can't take such innocent criticism, it'll be very hard for you to maintain any discussion.

" This is where you and I will go head to head most often. That is unless you could actually read my statement properly. Let's take a look at it..."

I agree. But you know, the problem is that not everybody reads your or even my sentences with the same eyes and mind as the person who originally wrote them. This means that sometimes phrases can be explained (and understood) in different ways. Judging by the number of people who actually replied to your 'cultural values' statement, I assume I wasn't the only one who 'misunderstood' what you really wanted to say.

"And I think Japan has done a great job in keeping their cultural values throughout the modern day world (ie capitalism)

ie capitalism" came after "Modern Day World"...in other words, "capitalism" is a reference to the modern day world, not a cultural value. There you have it.
"

The main subject of your phrase is "Cultural Values" or "Japan's Cultural Values" or, even completer "Japan's Culural Values in Modern Day". By using the example of "capitalism", you say "capitalism" is an example of "Japan's Cultural Values in Modern Days". If you just wanted to state that 'capitalism is part of Japan's Modern Days, then why the heck did you bring up this 'cultural values' thing in the first place?

"So you agree with the reason and hate the statement. Very well.

No I don't agree with the reason. I said I found the statement pathetic, not the reason why you wrote it. This doesn't mean I agree with that reason nor does it mean I find every reason I don't agree with pathetic per se.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], DarkSnowyNight, einsteinboricua and 32 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos