USA: The Good Empire
-
US SUX LA
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
If you see the situation from a broader perspective, you can see some positive effects of DPRK's behaviour over the years.
USA was getting cocky after its victory in Iraq in 2003 and ready to smash more countries.
But DPRK moved to stir up trouble.
This made USA think twice before acting on others.
I regard this as a positive move.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since USA invaded it, so whatever calming effect DPRK's confrontation with USA had on its aggressiveness is welcome in my view.
Oh really. Must be really too broad a perspective for me to understand this as a good thing.US policy against DPRK has changed at least 3 times since Bush stepped in. They've tried to sanction DPRK, didn't work out. Bribe DPRK, didn't work out either, and now they are trying to Shame DPRK into dismantling its nuclear armaments.
Honestly, its just nuclear blackmail on the international level. Kim is just lucky he is geographically located between China and South Korea, a politically sensitive region between US-Sino relations.
IMO, China would invade North Korea should it suddenly develop a operational nuclear warhead. Unfortunately, such a move would not be welcomed by South Koreans and will be held in suspicion by the US.
If anything else, the DPRK is a renegade that could push China and US into a military confrontation with its nuclear blackmail.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
If Mr Poh walks into S.Korea saying that, he might actually get stoned to death. There are so many N.Koreans that fled to the south telling of starvation and other horror stories caused by the Kim Regime.
Honestly, I do wish that the US went after Kim instead. Unfortunately, NK is too close to China to take military action without a Chinese military response. Kick dog also must see owner.
i don't knwo whether there r so many n.koreans fled to south,because so far as i know ,south k ,quite afraid of north k.And about the starvation.u never been to korea ,and u never know.N.korea is closed and isolated ,so the outsider often portray them as vulgar and inferior.And now the world is helping n.korea and invest in it . Positive move is going on.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Oh really. Must be really too broad a perspective for me to understand this as a good thing.US policy against DPRK has changed at least 3 times since Bush stepped in. They've tried to sanction DPRK, didn't work out. Bribe DPRK, didn't work out either, and now they are trying to Shame DPRK into dismantling its nuclear armaments.
Honestly, its just nuclear blackmail on the international level. Kim is just lucky he is geographically located between China and South Korea, a politically sensitive region between US-Sino relations.
IMO, China would invade North Korea should it suddenly develop a operational nuclear warhead. Unfortunately, such a move would not be welcomed by South Koreans and will be held in suspicion by the US.
If anything else, the DPRK is a renegade that could push China and US into a military confrontation with its nuclear blackmail.
china and us are not enemies. It's all money and benefit matter ,when situation change ,they may be friend.
As china's spokeman said china would continue open up ,work on economical progress.And peaceful raise.He don't want to raise war
-
There have been a several documentaries done on North Korea that were shot by National Geographic in DPRK. I think it provided me a with a glimpse of what goes on inside the country locked up by the Kim Regime.
Even our ST team had the opportunity to visit the country. Their handphones were confiscated the moment they landed and IIRC were only allowed selective filming and photography.
And I'm also sure Times and Newsweek have covered the North Korean "Re-education" camps countless of times. I'm sure you can find articles of it on the net as well.
I did not say that China and US are enemies. However, the US does see China as a military challenge in the region. Its growing fast, and there is no transparency in its military developments. The US military simply does not wish to be caught unprepared should the Chinese decide to use its military leverage its foreign policies, which it had repeatedly done in the 1990s with Taiwan.
While China has a right to build up its military, it also should take measures to assure the region that its build up is for peaceful and self-defence purpose. That it has yet to do beyond issued statements. No one knows how much it spends on the military, or where the money goes into. This gets people nervous.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
There have been a several documentaries done on North Korea that were shot by National Geographic in DPRK. I think it provided me a with a glimpse of what goes on inside the country locked up by the Kim Regime.
Even our ST team had the opportunity to visit the country. Their handphones were confiscated the moment they landed and IIRC were only allowed selective filming and photography.
And I'm also sure Times and Newsweek have covered the North Korean "Re-education" camps countless of times. I'm sure you can find articles of it on the net as well.
I did not say that China and US are enemies. However, the US does see China as a military challenge in the region. Its growing fast, and there is no transparency in its military developments. The US military simply does not wish to be caught unprepared should the Chinese decide to use its military leverage its foreign policies, which it had repeatedly done in the 1990s with Taiwan.
While China has a right to build up its military, it also should take measures to assure the region that its build up is for peaceful and self-defence purpose. That it has yet to do beyond issued statements. No one knows how much it spends on the military, or where the money goes into. This gets people nervous.
there is no transparency in its military developments
maybe u can get a glimpse on this website
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2008/2008-prc-military-power.htm
-
However, the US does see China as a military challenge in the region.
USA should fuck off Asia.
They are the greatest threat to peace now in my view.
This is clear from the invasion of Iraq.
China threat to who?
USA global hegemony?
-
While China has a right to build up its military, it also should take measures to assure the region that its build up is for peaceful and self-defence purpose. That it has yet to do beyond issued statements. No one knows how much it spends on the military, or where the money goes into. This gets people nervous.
every country has the right to build up its military.Who's military power is best in the world ,it's US.Why ppl don't blame them ,or just get used to it.
And about the transparency.I think somehow military stuff are confidential.and even tell ,what they build ,and how they spend the money ,it's nothing useful.Tell u china ,us ,and a lot of big country got nuclear warhead .what's use ,u can do anything about it.We should face it,the nuclear weapon is spread in the world.Ppl use that as a deterence ,no one will really use that.
And look at the history. How many wars in the world involved with us.gulf ,videnam,n.korea.iraq ,arfghanistan.I think china never really want to raise any war.The big thing for china ,is taiwan issue.I cannot see when it can be solved .
And the real reason ,western country afraid of china is communication barriar.China is not keen to introduce himself to the world.Maybe Olympic is a chance.
US is the world police, he piss off a lot of country,he do not pay the UN fees.He raise problem in iraq.Some day he will pay for it.Maybe through war,or more possiblity for economic crackdown.
-
US is the world police
USA is not the world police.
They are the global hegemon.
The world needs a strong Russia and China to put a check on this USA, or else more Iraqi invasions.
Their global hegemony must be destroyed, just like PAP hegemony must be destroyed.
Deng Xiao Peng:
China is aware of its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. Everyone can trust China in two respects.
First, China adheres to principles.
Second, China means what it says.
We do not play political games, nor do we engage in the play of words.
I personally love to play bridge, but China does not like to play political cards.
This is not only the case today, but was also the case during the period since the founding of the People's Republic in 1949 when Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai were leading the country.
This is why so many friends around the world trust us.
We understand the circumstances in many countries, particularly Third World countries.
China's foreign policy is consistent and can be summed up in three sentences.
First, we oppose hegemonism.
Second, we safeguard world peace.
Third, we are eager to strengthen unity and cooperation, or what might be termed 'union and cooperation', with other Third World countries.
The reason I lay special emphasis on the Third World is that opposition to hegemonism and safeguarding world peace are of special significance to the Third World.
Who are the victims of hegemonism?
Is it the United States or the Soviet Union? No, it is the United States and the Soviet Union that practise hegemonism, so they are not the victims. Neither are developed countries such as Japan, Canada, and countries in Europe and Oceania the victims. Eastern Europe suffers a little. If world peace is disrupted, who will be the first to become victims? Actually, there has been no peace since the end of World War II.
Although no major wars have been fought, minor ones have continued.
Where are the minor wars fought? In the Third World!
It is the superpowers that practise hegemonism and sow discord.
They are the ones with their hands in that arena! For many years, the superpowers have cashed in on conflicts between Third World countries in order to achieve their objectives.
Although the Third World itself faces various problems, it is the Third World countries and their peoples that become the real victims.
For this reason it must be the Third World that is the genuine and primary force for safeguarding world peace and opposing hegemonism, because this concern immediately affects Third World countries. This follows necessarily because of the position and immediate interests of the Third World itself...
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/dengxp/vol2/text/b1600.html
As long as USA is the global hegemon, I will oppose USA foreign policy.
There is no doubt about that.
-
good article
-
don't forget US become superpower after second world war,because of arms trade.
-
USA is Promoting Secession in Bolivia, Repeating Venezuela Effort
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3416
Amnesty International calls for inquiry into USA role in Somalia
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
USA should fuck off Asia.
They are the greatest threat to peace now in my view.
This is clear from the invasion of Iraq.
China threat to who?
USA global hegemony?
Did I say China was a threat? I said they are a military challenge. Do NOT twist my words. It is something I sorely dislike. A military challenge may not necessarily constitute a "threat." Just like in SG, we view China's military build up to be a regional security challenge as well, it does NOT mean we view China suspiciously as a threat.I did not say US is a the world police either, that was Rokkie. I do not see US as a world police, but recognize that they play a critical part in ensuring regional stability. Refer to my previous posts as to why.
You can oppose US foreign policy all you like, but you are sitting in front of the computer posting anti-US sentiments simply because you are reaping the benefits of US foreign policy. Where do you think the internet originated from?
Frankly speaking, I'd rather be under so called US "hegemony" than a Chinese one, if you even know the meaning of this term you've been blatantly throwing about, in the context of international relations. The US military is not THAT strong to be able coerce everybody in world into submitting to their policies. The fact that DPRK stands defiant emphasizes that. So is the US truly a global "hegemony" as you claim? The EU, China, and Russia can easily compete against the US's military strength. The United States is not able to dominate on a global level against these rising super powers at once is it?
Without a strong military presence in the pacific, it will be China who MIGHT become the regional hegemony. With a military rapid building up, and an industrial capability thats attracting low-cost production to China, it will soon be able to impose unfavorable trade arrangements to South East Asia for natural resources. Asia does not need hegemonies, it needs multilateralism, multiple powers that check each others dominance.
Despite US's military edge in the region, we haven't been forced or coerced into any unfavorable arrangements have we? So where's the "hegemony?"
-
US and singapore are alliance,but does not mean equally allied.U think US voice same as singapore does.Or they treat England France same as they treat singapore.US ,singapore ally because of benefit.S economy depend on US ,and singapore serve as a military base.
the relationship is either friendship or partnership, either one,it may change in the future.
US treat other country unfairly ,can also treat singapore unfairly.
U can try if singapore do sth harass US benefit,wat US response
-
Rokkie, SG and US are not an alliance, military or political. Again, check your facts.
We benefit from mutual cooperation, thats all. NATO is a military alliance that includes US, not Singapore. Singapore is part of the FPDA which isn't even an alliance, and doesn't include the USA. So how did we become an "Ally"?
If Singapore's economy depends on the US, and we need coverage from the US, shouldn't the US be in the position to "treat us unfairly" since we "need" them for so many things? But are we?
So which are the countries that are being "treated unfairly" by the US? Did they Need or Depend on the US for anything? Or on the other hand, did they antagonize the US by building nuclear arms?
-
The USA: Your masters of the universe
USA promises cannot be trusted - Gorbachev
-
Despite US's military edge in the region, we haven't been forced or coerced into any unfavorable arrangements have we? So where's the "hegemony?"
You didn't read the links I posted on this thread, that is why you ask this question.
-
I don't have to read them. The same reason I don't read "hotsheets" about UFO sightings and Little Green men. I sincerely question the neutrality of venezuelananalysis.com. Besides, the US has not used force to coerce Venezuela and Bolivia have they? If countries like Venezuela are not bowing to American will, how can US be a Global Hegemon if it can't even be a hegemon of its own backyard?
You haven't answered the key question. Can the US dominate and coerce the world into submission to its policies?
-
USA
The pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new West,They were determined to make that new world strong and free, an example to the world.
Some would say that those struggles are all over--that all the horizons have been explored--that all the battles have been won-- that there is no longer an American frontier.And we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier , a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils.
Beyond that frontier are the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice,I am asking each of you to be pioneers towards that New Frontier.My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age
Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction--but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men's minds?
All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we will do. And we cannot fail their trust, and we cannot fail to try.compiled excerpts J.F.K
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
If you see the situation from a broader perspective, you can see some positive effects of DPRK's behaviour over the years.
USA was getting cocky after its victory in Iraq in 2003 and ready to smash more countries.
But DPRK moved to stir up trouble.
This made USA think twice before acting on others.
I regard this as a positive move.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since USA invaded it, so whatever calming effect DPRK's confrontation with USA had on its aggressiveness is welcome in my view.
i like your positive effects...
people starving in North Korea.... dying of famine... what is the cost of rice to them?? they probably dun even have rice to eat...
no access to internet.. can't even scold the government on the Internet... unlike you who can post some anti-PAP topic everyday...
if they wan a better life, they need to run the gauntlet of the DMZ where they could be killed easily... unlike you, who can just pack his bags, take the next flight out of singapore...
Damn positive effects,,, since you so admire the DPRK, why don't you move there?? i don't think even the opposition here will miss you...
-
i like your positive effects...
What about DPRK making USA think twice before making rash moves against Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia etc?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
What about DPRK making USA think twice before making rash moves against Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia etc?
i like your selective cut and paste skills...
i also like how thick your skull is....
-
If let us assume, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Philipines, Malaysia and Singapore doesn't align their foreign policies with USA interests and USA wants to make hostile moves against them.
DPRK then instigates a nuclear confrontation with USA that causes it to divert its attention to DPRK.
From the point of view of peace in the southeast asia region, do you regard DPRK's moves as a positive influence?
-
That scenario only exists in a fantasy world where the USA is actually a communist or fascist state. Again, please elaborate an factual example, in your own words and understanding, How the USA has coerced another country when it decides to conflict in view with the US's foreign policy.
The US military flexes its muscles only when its interests are being threatened or a regional security threat emerges in its area of interests.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
If let us assume, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Philipines, Malaysia and Singapore doesn't align their foreign policies with USA interests and USA wants to make hostile moves against them.
DPRK then instigates a nuclear confrontation with USA that causes it to divert its attention to DPRK.
From the point of view of peace in the southeast asia region, do you regard DPRK's moves as a positive influence?
NO, Kim Jong Il is an Asian disgrace !
Somebardie should just put a bullet through his head.
Malaysia doesn't align their FP with USA's interest.. you don't see USA making hostile moves against them do you ???