Democrat win in 08=worst case scenario for Asia

[yoMAMA]

Other than Obama, I feel very pessimistic about U.S-Asia relationships under a donkey administration.





Democrat win worst scenario for Asia
OPINION
Greg Sheridan, foreign editor
March 10, 2007
LABOR leader Kevin Rudd is a strong admirer of George W. Bush's foreign policy, especially in the area of most importance to Australia, namely Asia.
Rudd recently told the Nine Network's Laurie Oakes: "There are many things that the Bush administration, its foreign policy in east Asia, has done absolutely right.
"For example, the success in recent times in bringing the North Koreans to their senses over their nuclear program, the very skilful management, so far, of the China-Taiwan relationship."

This is a view shared not only by the Howard Government but by all arms of the Australian bureaucracy. Australia's ambassador to the US, Dennis Richardson, told The Australian this week that the Bush administration's record in Asia is impressive.

Richardson said: "Over the last few years, the US has improved its bilateral relationship with each of China, Japan and India. I think you would have got long odds a few years back on that happening. And that set of trans-Pacific relationships determines the strategic environment in which Australia lives."

Richardson is dead right. The implication of both Rudd and Richardson's judgments (certainly shared by the Howard Government) is that the most difficult thing a Rudd government would face in Washington would not be the dying days of a Bush administration but a new Democratic administration, led by Hillary Clinton or someone else.

Just consider the scale of the Bush success in Asia. In US foreign policy, Asia is basically a Republican gig. The Democrats do Europe. When Bush came to office he stacked his foreign policy team with people with deep and diverse Asian experience: Colin Powell, Rich Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Jim Kelly and many others.

They implemented highly effective Asia strategies. Remember in the early days of the first Bush administration the wiseacres were all predicting a war between the US and China? Instead the relationship has been exceptionally stable. The Bush administration, while making sure China does not cross any red lines over Taiwan, has also disciplined Taiwan and dissuaded it from any grand pro-independence gestures, while protecting its de facto independence. The Bush administration has eschewed any protectionism towards China. China-US relations have had their ups and downs, but broadly they have been an unqualified success.

Japan has been an even bigger success. Mike Green of Georgetown University, writing in the new issue of Foreign Affairs, describes the ties between Bush and Japan's recently retired prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, as "the strongest relationship between a US president and a Japanese prime minister in history".

More than that, just as envisaged in a pre-election document authored by Armitage, Japan was encouraged to a strategic and diplomatic renaissance, including renegotiating the US-Japan alliance so Japan is more a reciprocal security partner for the US than previously, and encouraging the trilateral security dialogue between the US, Japan and Australia.

India has been even more dramatic. The new strategic partnership between Washington and Delhi, including the nuclear partnership, is potentially more important than Nixon's opening to China, and also proceeds from long-standing analysis by Bush's senior Asia hands.

Now there is the agreement with North Korea, which admittedly still has a long way to go. There are two salient points about it. It was a triumph of the US mechanism, the six-party talks, because it involved South Korea and Japan giving aid to North Korea that the US Congress would never have allowed the US to give itself. And it represented success by the Bush administration in finally getting China to put some pressure on North Korea.

Add to that renewed high-level US attention to Indonesia, including the administration's long and successful battle to get Congress to lift restrictions on US-Indonesia military-to-military relations, and the most intimate US-Australian alliance since World War II.

The Republicans get Asia because they like Asia and spend a lot of time there. The Asian security system is essentially a US Cold War construct that Republicans have been running for the majority of the past 60 years.

But there are deeper, structural reasons why Republicans do Asia and Democrats do Europe. In Asia, the nation state reigns supreme and everyone guards national sovereignty. They co-operate but they co-operate as separate nations. In Europe, liberal international institutionalism - the UN, the European Union, and others - has more of a hold. Obviously, with exceptions, Republicans are comfortable in Asia, Democrats in Europe.

So while the Middle East is a mess, Asia is an unqualified success for Bush, and this is of primary importance to us. Australian officials have already worked systematically to identify key figures in a likely future Democrat administration. Those nominated include: Bill Richardson, the Hispanic former governor of New Mexico; Jim Steinberg of the Brookings Institution who was formerly Bill Clinton's deputy national security adviser; Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon official who has extensive Asian ties; and Richard Holbrooke, who went within an ace of being Clinton's second secretary of state.

Holbrooke is a worry. Around Asia there is a lot of quiet concern about a future Democratic administration on several grounds: will it be more protectionist on trade, will it be weaker in the war on terror, will it have the same military commitment to Asian security, and what sort of secretary of state would Holbrooke make from an Asian perspective?

I have heard Holbrooke argue, to a room full of Asianists, that the US is a European power but not an Asian power, and that the US will always be more deeply concerned with the internal politics of Europe than Asia.

That's a fair summation of the default Democratic view. Whether Rudd, Howard or Peter Costello is PM in 2009, perhaps the worst thing he could confront would be a Democrat in the White House who would be less attuned to Asia, and therefore far less helpful to Australia.


© The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21353579-25377,00.html

[SunWuKong]

the reason that Sino-American relations has been relatively stable since the early days of the Bush administration is that since the early days of the Bush administration, the Middle East has dominated foreign policy efforts and it replaced China as the boogie man that the government needed. i don't know if China will like the next US president, but they certainly liked Clinton more than they like W. Bush.

[Player 0]

The only thing that's been keeping NKorea from making progress is the US' unwillingness to actually engage NKorea on diplomatic terms.

[SunWuKong]

The only thing that's been keeping NKorea from making progress is the US' unwillingness to actually engage NKorea on diplomatic terms.

that's a tough call. one-on-one engagement between the US and North Korea haven't really resulted in much of anything. personally, i'm glad that other powers in the region are helping to defuse the situation.

[Player 0]

that's a tough call. one-on-one engagement between the US and North Korea haven't really resulted in much of anything. personally, i'm glad that other powers in the region are helping to defuse the situation.

And it would've probably been a great deal more effective if the US hadn't been threatening to invade and rearming
Japan who also threatened to invade on a regular basis.

[yoMAMA]

Japan who also threatened to invade on a regular basis.

that would be kinda difficult since Japan does not have a military with offensive capabilities.

also with all that history, you'd think south korea, china and russia would just sit back and watch the imperial army 2.0 rolls into pyong yang?

:wink:

[Player 0]

that would be kinda difficult since Japan does not have a military with offensive capabilities.

also with all that history, you'd think south korea, china and russia would just sit back and watch the imperial army 2.0 rolls into pyong yang?

:wink:

No, they'd probably take this oppertunity to start an arms race, which is what the US wants, but none will actually intervene to save NKorea from Japan or the US, which is what's driving NKorea to build nukes in the first place.

[yoMAMA]

No, they'd probably take this oppertunity to start an arms race, which is what the US wants, but none will actually intervene to save NKorea from Japan or the US, which is what's driving NKorea to build nukes in the first place.

the U.S is bogged own in Iraq and Iran, how can it invade (or even seriously threaten north korea?

Also north korea is a despicable regime and I for one would be quite happy if they are overthrown.

As for Japan, they can easily build hundreds of nukes very quickly, but I don't think they will (or need to) as long as they are under the U.S nuclear umbrella.

[yoMAMA]

the reason that Sino-American relations has been relatively stable since the early days of the Bush administration is that since the early days of the Bush administration, the Middle East has dominated foreign policy efforts and it replaced China as the boogie man that the government needed. i don't know if China will like the next US president, but they certainly liked Clinton more than they like W. Bush.

seems like the big-business/corporate america faction of the GOP is winning arguments in the china debate within the w administration.

[Player 0]

the U.S is bogged own in Iraq and Iran, how can it invade (or even seriously threaten north korea?

Also north korea is a despicable regime and I for one would be quite happy if they are overthrown.

As for Japan, they can easily build hundreds of nukes very quickly, but I don't think they will (or need to) as long as they are under the U.S nuclear umbrella.

That's why they want Japan to build up, to use them as a proxy army, like Israel and Lebanon, but with greater success.

And if it were, what would that actually mean, other than mass instability in the region such as mass refugees migrating to Russia, SKorea and China which would have an extremely negative effect on those nations' economies, and envitably affect Japan and America, not that it's likely that the US or Japan either realize this or care.

The Japanese government will likely do that if they have their way, and they will do it with US support, the US wants to use Japan to police Asia as their proxy, but Japan will eventually become independent of the US and establish itself as the dominant power in the region free from US control, by which time the US will not be able to stop them, and then it will probably lead to Iraq style interventions all over Asia by a remilitarized Japan.

[yoMAMA]

The Japanese government will likely do that if they have their way, and they will do it with US support, the US wants to use Japan to police Asia as their proxy, but Japan will eventually become independent of the US and establish itself as the dominant power in the region free from US control, by which time the US will not be able to stop them, and then it will probably lead to Iraq style interventions all over Asia by a remilitarized Japan.

and that's exactly why the U.S won't allow Japan to remilitarize (which if it did would be a formidble high tech military power).

[Player 0]

and that's exactly why the U.S won't allow Japan to remilitarize (which if it did would be a formidble high tech military power).

Actually, it is allowing Japan to remilitarize, as Japan is driving to that, the only reason they aren't doing it more overtly than they are now is because people are afraid of China's increasing pull in the region, as well as growing anti-Japanese sentiments in the peoples of Asia.

[haplesshobo]

And it would've probably been a great deal more effective if the US hadn't been threatening to invade and rearming
Japan who also threatened to invade on a regular basis.

Oh, please. Stop with this canard about invading North Korea.

Japan's own constitution prevents it from ever engaging in an offensive war, and there would have been too much internal division about changing that. Unfortunately, North Korea, by testing missles that showed that it could hit Japan, has added fuel to the right in Japan. Plus, it doesn't help that North Korea has kidnapped a number of Japanese citizens over the years.

And, the US could never realistically invade North Korea without South Korea, specifically Seoul, from getting destroyed. North Korea already has enough conventional weapons to do that, without the help of nuclear weapons. And, North Korea was developing nuclear weapons long before George W. Bush came into office.

I'm still waiting to hear you explain how the US prevented other first world countries from investing in North Korea after I gave a list of all the first world countries loans and money that North Korea defaulted on.

[haplesshobo]

Other than Obama, I feel very pessimistic about U.S-Asia relationships under a donkey administration.

I don't see why Obama would be the exception. He's further to the left than most people realize, and he is a big supporter of unions. As unions are not big fans of China, Obama as president would push for protectionist policies against China.

[Yeahman]

i don't know if China will like the next US president, but they certainly liked Clinton more than they like W. Bush.
Clinton was the last Democratic neo-liberal. As far as trade relations go, there's little doubt that the Democrats are bad for Asia.

[Player 0]

Oh, please. Stop with this canard about invading North Korea.

Japan's own constitution prevents it from ever engaging in an offensive war, and there would have been too much internal division about changing that. Unfortunately, North Korea, by testing missles that showed that it could hit Japan, has added fuel to the right in Japan. Plus, it doesn't help that North Korea has kidnapped a number of Japanese citizens over the years.

And, the US could never realistically invade North Korea without South Korea, specifically Seoul, from getting destroyed. North Korea already has enough conventional weapons to do that, without the help of nuclear weapons. And, North Korea was developing nuclear weapons long before George W. Bush came into office.

I'm still waiting to hear you explain how the US prevented other first world countries from investing in North Korea after I gave a list of all the first world countries loans and money that North Korea defaulted on.

Japan's government has been driving towards remilitarization since the Iraq war, and much of NKorea's tests has been in response to the aggressive nature of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

And somehow i sincerely doubt either the governments of Japan or the US actually care about the fate of SKorea, or are simply too arrogant to believe that NKorea is capable of attack SKorea at the same time that they invade the North.

The poses a constant threat to NKorea's existence, as such NKorea must must a great deal of its money on its military to ensure the future of its survival, when the US is run by an administration who is less antogonistic against NKorea and stands down aggressive military force against NKorea, and when NKorea has the ability to defend itself with nuclear weapons, only then can NKorea gain foreign investment, as NKorea simply cannot spend money on its civilian industries, China very much the same way during the 1960s.

[haplesshobo]

Japan's government has been driving towards remilitarization since the Iraq war, and much of NKorea's tests has been in response to the aggressive nature of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

And somehow i sincerely doubt either the governments of Japan or the US actually care about the fate of SKorea, or are simply too arrogant to believe that NKorea is capable of attack SKorea at the same time that they invade the North.

The poses a constant threat to NKorea's existence, as such NKorea must must a great deal of its money on its military to ensure the future of its survival, when the US is run by an administration who is less antogonistic against NKorea and stands down aggressive military force against NKorea, and when NKorea has the ability to defend itself with nuclear weapons, only then can NKorea gain foreign investment, as NKorea simply cannot spend money on its civilian industries, China very much the same way during the 1960s.

I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. It was during Clinton's term, long before Bush W. came into office, that North Korea withdrew from Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty in 93, kicked out inspectors, and was suspected by Blix to have secretly started creating weapons grade plutonium in the early 90s. We now know that in 97 that North Korea traded its missle technology with Pakistan for Pakistan's nuclear technology.

So, that is simply inaccurate to claim that North Korea's move towards a nuclear path were a response to Bush's aggressive policy. And, in fact, it was North Korea's missle testing that is leading to Japan to consider rearming itself. For the Chinese, their support of North Korea might ultimately prove to be a mistake if it leads to a nuclear Japan.

I could go on, but this is getting awfully redunant.

[VV o n g B a]

i'm surprised the author would say asia is an unqualified success when n. korea has now tested a nuke and afghanistan is a mess. even if u don't count afghanistan as part of asia, the n. korean nuke issue appears to be a whopping failure. i mean, so what if u got china to apply pressure to n. korea? u've already allowed n. korea to declare itself a nuclearized state. how, in any fashion, can that be an unqualified success?

[Player 0]

I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. It was during Clinton's term, long before Bush W. came into office, that North Korea withdrew from Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty in 93, kicked out inspectors, and was suspected by Blix to have secretly started creating weapons grade plutonium in the early 90s. We now know that in 97 that North Korea traded its missle technology with Pakistan for Pakistan's nuclear technology.

So, that is simply inaccurate to claim that North Korea's move towards a nuclear path were a response to Bush's aggressive policy. And, in fact, it was North Korea's missle testing that is leading to Japan to consider rearming itself. For the Chinese, their support of North Korea might ultimately prove to be a mistake if it leads to a nuclear Japan.

I could go on, but this is getting awfully redunant.

Yes, and in the process of the recent six party talks that have occurred during Bush's time in office have had little effect because of the hawkish nature of the Bush party and the LDP.

Japan's aggressive drive towards remilitarization has been going since the 1990s with the recession of their economy, it has only become more pronounced now that the Japanese feel comfortable with the Bush administration who supports their aims, and use NKorea as a convinient excuse, why else do you think Japan was so quick to send troops to aid the Americans this Iraq war and not send any troops during the last Iraq war.

My thoughts exactly.

[yoMAMA]

I don't see why Obama would be the exception. He's further to the left than most people realize, and he is a big supporter of unions. As unions are not big fans of China, Obama as president would push for protectionist policies against China.

Obama grew up in the "pacific rim", both in the U.S and abroad, in hawaii, in indonesia, went to college in L.A for two years, and he talked about those experiences in Indonesia in both of his two books, so the guy has an understanding of Asia-Pacific that the other democrats probably lacks.

That's why I feel good about the guy.

[yoMAMA]

Clinton was the last Democratic neo-liberal. As far as trade relations go, there's little doubt that the Democrats are bad for Asia.

exactly.

even clinton tried to go to trade war with Japan in the mid 90s.

[yoMAMA]

The poses a constant threat to NKorea's existence, as such NKorea must must a great deal of its money on its military to ensure the future of its survival, when the US is run by an administration who is less antogonistic against NKorea and stands down aggressive military force against NKorea, and when NKorea has the ability to defend itself with nuclear weapons, only then can NKorea gain foreign investment, as NKorea simply cannot spend money on its civilian industries, China very much the same way during the 1960s.

yeah, poor north korea, who invade south korea and started the korean war (with the consequences of millions lost their lives), and a state sponsor of terrorism.

those poor underdogs.

[SunWuKong]

i'm surprised the author would say asia is an unqualified success when n. korea has now tested a nuke and afghanistan is a mess.

yeah i was wondering myself about the author's logic. it seems that to him, "unqualified success" means that they didn't fuck up.

sure, there is measurable improvements in relations with Vietnam, in the fact that Vietnam entered the WTO. the "progress" in North Korea is basically marred by the fact that North Korea is nuclearly armed now. the situation in Myanmar is the same. people in the Philippines hate the US more after the rape case. and cross-straits relations between China and Taiwan have largely stayed the same. trade with China has increased - but it would increase if the government just do nothing anyway. relations with both South Korea and Japan are great, but they've been great for many administrations now. what else?

i guess this is what the author calls "unqualified success"?

[yoMAMA]

yeah i was wondering myself about the author's logic. it seems that to him, "unqualified success" means that they didn't fuck up.

well, at least W didn't bomb the chinese embassy.

:biggrin:

[SunWuKong]

well, at least W didn't bomb the chinese embassy.

:biggrin:


touché. :smile:

[Dimeron]

Honestly, I doubt much will happen. Iraq will still be a mess thanks to Bush. The new admin, whoever they are, might have the whole "idealistic" thing with containing China and pacifying NK, we will hear a lot of Rhetoric, then reality will quickly catch up to those guys and nothing will happen.

Have faith in power of money and big corporations who love China.

[haplesshobo]

Japan's aggressive drive towards remilitarization has been going since the 1990s with the recession of their economy, it has only become more pronounced now that the Japanese feel comfortable with the Bush administration who supports their aims, and use NKorea as a convinient excuse


That's like blaming South Korea for getting invaded by North Korea. In 98, North Korea tested missles that flew over the Japanese mainland, and Japan freaked out. Plus, you still don't acknowledge that North Korea has been kidnapping Japanese citizens throughout the years. If North Korea didn't act in such an aggressive manner, the Japanese public would have been too divided to support remilitarization.

[haplesshobo]

And it would've probably been a great deal more effective if the US hadn't been threatening to invade and rearming
Japan who also threatened to invade on a regular basis.

Now, you're just making shit up. When has Japan threatened to invade North Korea? Japan doesn't even have long-range bombers or missiles, no aircraft carries or nuclear submarines, that you'd need to pull off an invasion.

[Player 0]

That's like blaming South Korea for getting invaded by North Korea. In 98, North Korea tested missles that flew over the Japanese mainland, and Japan freaked out. Plus, you still don't acknowledge that North Korea has been kidnapping Japanese citizens throughout the years. If North Korea didn't act in such an aggressive manner, the Japanese public would have been too divided to support remilitarization.

You really need to do some actual studying of Japan's history, throughout it there have been many hawkish PMs who have sought to remilitarize Japan, with current economic problems such as immigrants and unemployment caused by the new globalization that Japan's economy is yet to properly deal with, this is a problem that's also afflicting western Europe, and like there the population is becoming increasingly agitated, the only difference between them and Japan is that Japan's government is right wing and oppertunistic enough to push for militarization to solve their economic woes, much like their American counterparts.

[Player 0]

Now, you're just making shit up. When has Japan threatened to invade North Korea? Japan doesn't even have long-range bombers or missiles, no aircraft carries or nuclear submarines, that you'd need to pull off an invasion.

Japan, along with the US has had numerous military exercises near or on the Korean peninsula, JApan's government officials have cited NKorea, and China, as a threat that justifies greater military expenditure, that and Japan's government has no qualms about showing off their militaristic opinions, what with Yasukuni and all, but then again i'm sure it's all just nothing to worry about, after all the US never specifically said it'll invade Iran or NKorea, doesn't mean it actually will.

[haplesshobo]

You really need to do some actual studying of Japan's history, throughout it there have been many hawkish PMs who have sought to remilitarize Japan, with current economic problems such as immigrants and unemployment caused by the new globalization that Japan's economy is yet to properly deal with, this is a problem that's also afflicting western Europe, and like there the population is becoming increasingly agitated, the only difference between them and Japan is that Japan's government is right wing and oppertunistic enough to push for militarization to solve their economic woes, much like their American counterparts.

In the 80s, Japan had a hawkish PM, but that nothing to do with its economic problems which didn't hit Japan until later.

There's a difference between having a hawkish PM and having the groundswell of political support to carry out those policies. If North Korea wasn't acting so provactively, you wouldn't be able to muster enough support to effectively carry out remilitarization.

[Player 0]

In the 80s, Japan had a hawkish PM, but that nothing to do with its economic problems which didn't hit Japan until later.

There's a difference between having a hawkish PM and having the groundswell of political support to carry out those policies. If North Korea wasn't acting so provactively, you wouldn't be able to muster enough support to effectively carry out remilitarization.

Of course not, Japan's economic troubles started in the 90s, and as such these hawkish drives for remilitarization have been going since the 90s, try and pay attention.

I very doubt people in Japan will really be able to do much about their government's aggression, democracy is just a word in Japan, thanks to the US there are no parties other than the conservatives who have the numbers and power to actually make it into office, not that protesting by the poeple will have any effect, as shown in America people protested and are still protesting against the war in Iraq, yet the troops are still there.

[haplesshobo]

Of course not, Japan's economic troubles started in the 90s, and as such these hawkish drives for remilitarization have been going since the 90s, try and pay attention.

I very doubt people in Japan will really be able to do much about their government's aggression, democracy is just a word in Japan, thanks to the US there are no parties other than the conservatives who have the numbers and power to actually make it into office, not that protesting by the poeple will have any effect, as shown in America people protested and are still protesting against the war in Iraq, yet the troops are still there.

Um, I think you need to pay more attention for once. Don't try to put up some strawman argument here. Of course, Japan's economic problems started in the 90s. But, in the 80s, when its economy was still going strong, you had Nakasone who supported remilitarization. So, that's why I think your agument linking remilitarization to economic recession is off. If your argument was true, then explain Nakasone.

You really have no idea how goverments work, do you? President Bush won a much contested r-election, as well as Republicans winning congress in 04. There were american protests, sometimes massive ones, but those proved to be in the minority when it came to the election cycle in 04.

[Player 0]

Um, I think you need to pay more attention for once. Don't try to put up some strawman argument here. Of course, Japan's economic problems started in the 90s. But, in the 80s, when its economy was still going strong, you had Nakasone who supported remilitarization. So, that's why I think your agument linking remilitarization to economic recession is off. If your argument was true, then explain Nakasone.

You really have no idea how goverments work, do you? President Bush won a much contested r-election, as well as Republicans winning congress in 04. There were american protests, sometimes massive ones, but those proved to be in the minority when it came to the election cycle in 04.

Nakasone didn't have support back then, because there was no reason for militarization, people won't change something if there isn't a problem, it's a very simplething that's occurred during times of economic strife and uncertainty, if there's a problem with the economy turn to the military, something right wing governments are famous for.

No, actually in terms of actual population size those were the majority, America's population is just dispersed in a way across state borders that ensure there are more conservative leaning states than liberal ones, despite the fact that the liberals are more populated, it's the folly of the American election system that counts individual votes of states rather than popular votes.

[haplesshobo]

Nakasone didn't have support back then, because there was no reason for militarization, people won't change something if there isn't a problem, it's a very simplething that's occurred during times of economic strife and uncertainty, if there's a problem with the economy turn to the military, something right wing governments are famous for.

No, actually in terms of actual population size those were the majority, America's population is just dispersed in a way across state borders that ensure there are more conservative leaning states than liberal ones, despite the fact that the liberals are more populated, it's the folly of the American election system that counts individual votes of states rather than popular votes.

Its hard to take you seriously when you're just making shit up like this. Bush had around 62 million american citizens vote for him in 04 while Kerry had around 59 million citizens vote for him.

I don't why I'm even trying to debate this. Sure, America has its problems. But, to seriously defend North Korea's actions in this is just... Well, at least, you win the title of 'who hates america most' over martino. Its pretty obvious that no amount of countervaling evidence will ever change your opinion. At this point, you might as well jam your fingers into your ears in case any evidence might ever reach your brain.

[Player 0]

Its hard to take you seriously when you're just making shit up like this. Bush had around 62 million american citizens vote for him in 04 while Kerry had around 59 million citizens vote for him.

I don't why I'm even trying to debate this. Sure, America has its problems. But, to seriously defend North Korea's actions in this is just... Well, at least, you win the title of 'who hates america most' over martino. Its pretty obvious that no amount of countervaling evidence will ever change your opinion. At this point, you might as well jam your fingers into your ears in case any evidence might ever reach your brain.

It's called the electoral college, look it up.

I'm not defending NKorea, i'm providing reason for its actions, it's called balance, which is the opposite of simply calling NKorea evil all the time, which is a pass time of most Americans, and of course clearly anyone who doesn't agree totally with what Americans say must therefore be evil and wrong, coz Merikans can never tell a lie, nah sar.

[haplesshobo]

North Korea's actions are pretty easy to understand. You've got a egomaniac who is living like a god, and doesn't want to give it up and would rather sacrifice the prosperity of his nation.

It's called the electoral college, look it up.


Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Bush won both the electoral college votes and the popular vote in 04. You know what, I'm out.

[Player 0]

North Korea's actions are pretty easy to understand. You've got a egomaniac who is living like a god, and doesn't want to give it up and would rather sacrifice the prosperity of his nation.



Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Bush won both the electoral college votes and the popular vote in 04. You know what, I'm out.

Thank you so much for proving my point for me.

And he lost the popular vote in 2000, funny how that works.

[haplesshobo]

Thank you so much for proving my point for me.

And he lost the popular vote in 2000, funny how that works.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're so obsessed with your hatred towards the US that you refuse to acknowledge these incoveninent facts and truths.

We were talking about 2004 and how the election, if viewed as a referendum against the war, showed that while there may been protests against the war, those protesters were in the minority when it came to voters at that time. If Bush had lost and the Democrats had won Congress, you would have seen changes in our foreign policy. Sorry, bub, but that's how democracy works.

[Player 0]

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're so obsessed with your hatred towards the US that you refuse to acknowledge these incoveninent facts and truths.

We were talking about 2004 and how the election, if viewed as a referendum against the war, showed that while there may been protests against the war, those protesters were in the minority when it came to voters at that time. If Bush had lost and the Democrats had won Congress, you would have seen changes in our foreign policy. Sorry, bub, but that's how democracy works.

As opposed to you who makes facts up, you claim that Kim Jong il is working only to ensure his own survival, but to actually know his motives you would actually have to meet him and spend a great of time psychoanalysing him, since hihgly unlikely that you have why exactly should i trust you or anyone else who hasn't met the man when they say such things, i work with the facts and i present them from the perception and situation that is being faced by the NKorean nation, nothing more, you in proper American style simply twist the facts in order to speculate and reach the conclusion that gives your side the moral high ground and thus justifying any sort of aggressive action you wish to take against the opposition.

Bush didn't win the election based on the war, he won because of mud slinging and twisting the facts, making it so that people would forget about Iraq and concentrate on issues like gay marriage.

[haplesshobo]

As opposed to you who makes facts up, you claim that Kim Jong il is working only to ensure his own survival, but to actually know his motives you would actually have to meet him and spend a great of time psychoanalysing him, since hihgly unlikely that you have why exactly should i trust you or anyone else who hasn't met the man when they say such things, i work with the facts and i present them from the perception and situation that is being faced by the NKorean nation, nothing more, you in proper American style simply twist the facts in order to speculate and reach the conclusion that gives your side the moral high ground and thus justifying any sort of aggressive action you wish to take against the opposition.

Bush didn't win the election based on the war, he won because of mud slinging and twisting the facts, making it so that people would forget about Iraq and concentrate on issues like gay marriage.

Making up facts?

You're the one who stated that the US wouldn't allow any other countries to invest in North Korea and I posted a number of projects that countries like germany, japan, france that all have invested in North Korea at one point. Instead, of blaming everything on America, I pointed out that North Korea must bear responsibility by defaulting on its loans. Everything that goes wrong in North Korea, you blame it on the US. At what point, does North Korea bear responsibility for all the shit that's gone down?

North Korea could have seen a massive infusion of aid and capital, where people's lives got better, if Il Jung had given up power and North and South Korea reunited.

[Player 0]

Making up facts?

You're the one who stated that the US wouldn't allow any other countries to invest in North Korea and I posted a number of projects that countries like germany, japan, france that all have invested in North Korea at one point. Instead, of blaming everything on America, I pointed out that North Korea must bear responsibility by defaulting on its loans. Everything that goes wrong in North Korea, you blame it on the US. At what point, does North Korea bear responsibility for all the shit that's gone down?

North Korea could have seen a massive infusion of aid and capital, where people's lives got better, if Il Jung had given up power and North and South Korea reunited.

When NKorea no longer has to act in order to counter the aggression of the US.

No actually it wouldn't, even if Kim gave up power reunification between Korea wouldn't happen because the state of the NKorea economy is so poor, poeple won't want a reunion between the two like this, it would be Germany all over again.

[haplesshobo]

When NKorea no longer has to act in order to counter the aggression of the US.

No actually it wouldn't, even if Kim gave up power reunification between Korea wouldn't happen because the state of the NKorea economy is so poor, poeple won't want a reunion between the two like this, it would be Germany all over again.

You just can't stop blaming everything on America. So, when North Korea invaded South Korea, that was also the fault of the Americans, right? Hey, let's start blaming what happened in the 1500s in Asia even though America didn't exist.

[Player 0]

You just can't stop blaming everything on America. So, when North Korea invaded South Korea, that was also the fault of the Americans, right? Hey, let's start blaming what happened in the 1500s in Asia even though America didn't exist.

No, actually that was partly the fault of the SKorean government of that period who provoked the NKoreans with skirmishes and other various attacks on the border, but added as justification for Kim Il Sung to launch an invasion on SKorea with Soviet support.

[haplesshobo]

This is the difference between you and I:

I look at the facts first, and then make my decision. You make your decision, and then find facts or even make facts to support your decision.

[Player 0]

This is the difference between you and I:

I look at the facts first, and then make my decision. You make your decision, and then find facts or even make facts to support your decision.

No actually you have them mixed up, you seem to think you have ability to read the minds of people and understand their motives, or you have the ability to time travel and have secretly gone into the future to read history books about this period to back up your statements, in either case i expect to see some credentials.

[haplesshobo]

No actually you have them mixed up, you seem to think you have ability to read the minds of people and understand their motives, or you have the ability to time travel and have secretly gone into the future to read history books about this period to back up your statements, in either case i expect to see some credentials.

LOL. Geez, you really are pulling a martino- you get all upset at something somebody is doing when you've done the exact same thing. So, tell me, can you read the minds of American military or President or Japan in all of this and understand their motives? That hasn't stopped you from some of the assertions you've made. I mean, you've ignored several inconvinet facts that american forces are stretched enough as it is and there's not enough american ground forces for an invasion, that an invasion of North Korea would wipe out Seoul, etc... Or, that Japan's military doesn't have the military capability to spearhead an invasion. And, that you've asserted that the US didn't allow its allies to invest in North Korea when I've pointed out case studies of such example of West Germany, Japan, etc.. all investing in North Korea but North Korea defaulting on those loans.

[Player 0]

LOL. Geez, you really are pulling a martino- you get all upset at something somebody is doing when you've done the exact same thing. So, tell me, can you read the minds of American military or President or Japan in all of this and understand their motives? That hasn't stopped you from some of the assertions you've made. I mean, you've ignored several inconvinet facts that american forces are stretched enough as it is and there's not enough american ground forces for an invasion, that an invasion of North Korea would wipe out Seoul, etc... Or, that Japan's military doesn't have the military capability to spearhead an invasion. And, that you've asserted that the US didn't allow its allies to invest in North Korea when I've pointed out case studies of such example of West Germany, Japan, etc.. all investing in North Korea but North Korea defaulting on those loans.

No, i'm basing my assertions off simple, historically proven facts, when conservatives encounter a problem they can't solve, their instinct is to shoot it.

[Yeahman]

It begins:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8960705

Almost a dozen anti-China bills have already been introduced in Congress this year.

Nor will the Bush team's sudden China-bashing win many votes for its free-trade agreements. A few wavering Republicans may be convinced by the tough talk. But Democrats are the real barrier, both to the passage of existing FTAs and to the extension of Mr Bush's fast-track negotiating authority, which expires on June 30th.

Despite much shuttling between the Bush trade team and Charles Rangel, the top trade Democrat in the House of Representatives, the chances of a package that could buy Democratic support either for existing proposed FTAs (with Peru, Panama, Colombia and now South Korea) or for renewing fast-track, seem slim.

The Bush team has promised more money to help those hurt by trade; it has offered to get tougher on foreign labour-standards. But judging from a wish-list published by congressional Democrats on March 27th, none of that will be enough. As well as tough labour-standards, the Democrats want “immediate action” against currency manipulation in China and Japan and specific changes to individual trade-deals. The latest deal, for instance, must link the reduction of America's car tariffs to the number of American cars sold in South Korea.

The extent of these conditions suggests that congressional Democrats (perhaps with the exception of Mr Rangel) do not really want any trade deals to go through.

...

For all the nifty footwork of recent days, America's trade agenda seems headed backwards.

[VV o n g B a]

it's unfortunate as it is unsurprising. i can't read the full article, but does it compare hilary's free trade credentials w/ obama's? i'd love to see somewhere that both of their outlooks resemble bill's, but i'm guessing those days are over.

[friedfishribs]

Psh, I'm wondering if it's in the Asian continent's best interest to be placated in the thrall of the U.S. Yes, we've fucked up with North Korea, that's why they decided to pursue nuclear arms in the first place. And no, our policy of military protectionism in not in the people's best interest. Not for the U.S. where it only furthers the military industrial complex, and not for Asia where it bridges their sovereignty while only serving the upper class. And how is breaking away from the UN and helping India pursue nuclear arms a good thing? Isn't this what we're fighting?

Pursuing American interests in Asia is not the same thing as doing what's best for Asia's interests. This is no more true than it is in China, where, despite what people seem believe in this thread, sweatshop labor does not constitute legitimate economic headway.

[Yeahman]

it's unfortunate as it is unsurprising. i can't read the full article, but does it compare hilary's free trade credentials w/ obama's? i'd love to see somewhere that both of their outlooks resemble bill's, but i'm guessing those days are over.
Naw. It's about Bush's recent FTA with South Korea and the simultaneous imposition of a tariff on glossy paper from China. He's hoping that smaller, relatively unimportant, anti-trade measures will placate the Democrats and keep FTAs alive and let some steam out of the more drastic measures that Democrats want to take.

Psh, I'm wondering if it's in the Asian continent's best interest to be placated in the thrall of the U.S. Yes, we've fucked up with North Korea, that's why they decided to pursue nuclear arms in the first place.
How'd Clinton fuck up with NK?

And no, our policy of military protectionism in not in the people's best interest. Not for the U.S. where it only furthers the military industrial complex, and not for Asia where it bridges their sovereignty while only serving the upper class.
How does it serve the Asian upper class?

And how is breaking away from the UN and helping India pursue nuclear arms a good thing? Isn't this what we're fighting?
US broke away from the UN? That's news to me.
We definitely want India to have nuclear power. They're not hostile to the US, and their energy consumption is rising sharply.

Pursuing American interests in Asia is not the same thing as doing what's best for Asia's interests. This is no more true than it is in China, where, despite what people seem believe in this thread, sweatshop labor does not constitute legitimate economic headway.
It's not just what we believe. It's what history proves.

[AgentTofu]

This is no more true than it is in China, where, despite what people seem believe in this thread, sweatshop labor does not constitute legitimate economic headway.

Not to mention the environmental problems this massively uncontrolled manufacturing shift is providing for countless regions. At this point, both America and China could use some people who are about more than just the almighty dollar.

[Yeahman]

Not to mention the environmental problems this massively uncontrolled manufacturing shift is providing for countless regions. At this point, both America and China could use some people who are about more than just the almighty dollar.
To me feeding people is more important than preventing smog. That could just be me though.

[AgentTofu]

If only it were smog. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China)

CO2 emissions from China are expected to surpass the U.S. in as soon as two years from now. 10% of the GDP getting eaten up for shake&bake operations that are eating up resources which have been used for thousands of years isn't ideal.

[VV o n g B a]

i don't think anyone thinks pollution is ideal. but the view is, we're willing to fuck up our environment to catchup to international standards of wealth. once we've gotten there, we can slow down a bit and cleanup. but catching up is priority one.

as for chinese emissions catching up 2 years from now... i think that's still pretty good on a per capita level. but don't get me wrong, i've seen and breathed shanghai and beijing air and it's really really bad. i've never had black snot w/o a nosebleed before. not something i'd like to put up w/ everyday unless i had other objectives that overrode the clean air priority.

[Yeahman]

And it's not like they can't reduce emissions and operate sweatshops at the same time. There are options between doing nothing and banning.

[Yeahman]

Who's the real left-winger? (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9163589)

Basically saying we don't know where any of the Democrats really stand. Edwards is the presumed top anti-trader. He opposed the FTA with South Korea.

The article hypothesizes that Hillary's anti-trade rhetoric is there just to paint her as more liberal than she really is. Her economic advisers are the old pro-trade Clinton neo-liberals.

Obama is the biggest mystery. He has an anti-trade record.

[haplesshobo]

Other than Obama, I feel very pessimistic about U.S-Asia relationships under a donkey administration.

Seems a lot of Indian-Americans were offended by a controversial memo, "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s Personal Financial and Political Ties to India", that Obama's campaign sent out that to try to attack Hillary Clinton by detailing her relationship and ties with Indian Americans. This doesn't like a sign that here's a guy who will form a good relationship with Asia when he uses Indian-Americans to demonize his opponent. My opinion is that he's too beholden to the unions to expect otherwise.

Obama seems to be making a lot of missteps, and its pretty obvious that he's not ready for the public scrutiny of the national press yet. There's this memo, there was his promise that blacks in New Orleans would riot in the streets like in the LA riots, etc..

I think a large part of his appeal that people have projected the hopes onto the guy even though he's never necessairly done anything to support those beliefs. It'll be interesting to see if he has the same support when those illusions are stripped away.

[AgentTofu]

China Tops World In CO2 Emissions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_sc/china_climate_change)

Well that didn't take long. This expansion is to a degree few of us can comprehend.

"China's growth will saturate at some point," he said. But "for now, we don't see a trend (toward) this saturation yet."


I also fully recommend reading Obama's speech (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/06/sweet_blog_special_obama_warns.html), it is actually quite uplifting. Bob Lewis (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/bob-lewis-and-barack-obama-a-relationship-every-american-should-watch/) of The Associated Press needs to get his act together.

[SunWuKong]

is anybody starting to feel that Edwards will be more likely to win the presidential race than Hilary or Obama?

[Yeahman]

is anybody starting to feel that Edwards will be more likely to win the presidential race than Hilary or Obama?
No.

[haplesshobo]

I also fully recommend reading Obama's speech (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/06/sweet_blog_special_obama_warns.html), it is actually quite uplifting. Bob Lewis (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/bob-lewis-and-barack-obama-a-relationship-every-american-should-watch/) of The Associated Press needs to get his act together.

That's why I kind of have doubts if Obama is seasoned enough to make a run for the presidency in the same way General Clark wasn't ready for his run for the presidency. I understand he's tailoring his speeches for what his audiences want to hear, but I think Obama sometimes gets self-indulgent with his speeches where he gets carried away with the rhetoric as we saw when he compared the shootings in Virgina to the Don Imus comments about the Rutgers basketball team. Even if we agree that there's nothing radical about his ideas in the speech, the reality is that somebody in the campaign should have realized that the word 'riot' is just too threatening to middle america to use in a speech like that and that it would be seized by his opponents to paint him as a dangerous liberal.

[haplesshobo]

is anybody starting to feel that Edwards will be more likely to win the presidential race than Hilary or Obama?

Not with stories and clips like this floating around:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/04/AR2007070401258_pf.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

Frankly, if I had hair like his, I would be doing the same thing.

But, those stories reinforce the image of him as a light weight and undercuts his more serious message of 'two americas' and being the first presidential nominee since Robert Kennedy to make a major issue out of poverty in america.

[yoMAMA]

is anybody starting to feel that Edwards will be more likely to win the presidential race than Hilary or Obama?

no with $1,250 haircuts :biggrin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/04/AR2007070401258_pf.html

[SunWuKong]

well the reason i'm wondering about Edwards is because both Hilary and Obama seem like big risks for the Democrats to push as their candidate. in the end, they've got to win over a portion of Middle America to get the presidency. there's the glaring fact that Edwards is a white man. there hasn't even been that many black or women senators or state governors, i think it'll be difficult for the Democrats to push either a woman or a black presidential candidate. aside from that, both Hilary and Obama's politics can be seen to be very far to the left, it'll be difficult to win over the more moderate voters.

[Yeahman]

Edwards has positioned himself as the left-wing candidate. He is the serious candidate least likely to get my vote.

[yoMAMA]

Edwards has positioned himself as the left-wing candidate. He is the serious candidate least likely to get my vote.

let's see, his signature issue is to highlight and reduce poverty in america.

and he got a 1250$ haircut and worked for a hedge fund.

that's so working class.

[Yeahman]

let's see, his signature issue is to highlight and reduce poverty in america.

and he got a 1250$ haircut and worked for a hedge fund.

that's so working class.
But he was the son of a mill worker, lest anyone forget.
Didn't know he worked for a hedge fund. I know he made his millions suing doctors. FDR once said that he couldn't pass universal healthcare because he wasn't powerful enough to take on the AMA. The AMA is gonna love Edwards.

[yoMAMA]

Didn't know he worked for a hedge fund.

John Edwards, Hedge Fund Magnate :tongue:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051013_3314_db016.htm

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/for-poverty-101-edwards-went-to-a-hedge-fund/

John Edwards has made poverty a top issue as he stumps for the Democratic Presidential nomination. So his connections to Fortress Investment Group, a highly profitable hedge fund and private equity firm with several executives on Forbes’ latest billionaires list, have provoked quite a bit of interest from campaign watchers. Asked about his decision to join Fortress as a senior adviser in 2005, Mr. Edwards told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he did it “mainly in order to learn about the relationships between financial markets and poverty.”

But the reporters and editors at the A.P. didn’t let him off that easy.

Did he really have to join a hedge fund to learn about that? they asked Mr. Edwards, a former United States senator and trial lawyer. “How else would I have done it?” he responded. Well, you could have taken a class, it was suggested.

“That’s true,” he allowed.

He also conceded that he worked for Fortress in part because “making money was a good thing, too,” but insisted he did it “primarily to learn.”

Mr. Edwards’s year-long stint at Fortress began in October 2005, after he served as running mate to Senator John Kerry in his failed presidential bid. Since the Kerry campaign, Mr. Edwards has also run a center on work and poverty for the University of North Carolina law school.

Hedge funds are private, lightly regulated pools of capital that are usually restricted to wealthy individuals and institutional investors. The best of these funds offer returns that far exceed what the average investor could get from a mutual fund. Hedge funds have created mountains of wealth for the people who run them, some of whom have built modern-day castles in Greenwich, Conn., where many hedge funds are based.

In addition to hedge funds, Fortress also runs private equity funds, which acquire companies in hopes of profiting by selling them or taking them public.

Mr. Edwards has not disclosed how much he earned working as a consultant for Fortress. But stay tuned: He said he would do so next week when he releases his financial disclosure forms.

The Washington Post reported last week, as noted by DealBook, that Fortress is the biggest employer of donors to Mr. Edwards’ campaign. In all, Fortress employees gave about $167,000, according to the Pos

[haplesshobo]

I don't know why Edwards needs to defend his work at a hedge fund. Is working at a hedge fund really that much worse than being a lawyer? ;)

[Golden Monkey]

I don't know why Edwards needs to defend his work at a hedge fund. Is working at a hedge fund really that much worse than being a lawyer? ;)

For all the talk about diversity among the Democrats - White woman, black mulatto Kenyan guy, white guy who is a bit effeminate - notice the similarity. All are lawyers!!

Lawyers are scumbag parasites for the most part. We have too many in politics as it is.

[yoMAMA]

For all the talk about diversity among the Democrats - White woman, black mulatto Kenyan guy, white guy who is a bit effeminate - notice the similarity. All are lawyers!!

Lawyers are scumbag parasites for the most part. We have too many in politics as it is.

check out the gop front runners ::biggrin:

gulianai: lawyer/former prosecutor

romney: private equity guy (went to harvard law)

[Golden Monkey]

check out the gop front runners ::biggrin:

gulianai: lawyer/former prosecutor

romney: private equity guy (went to harvard law)

I know they're EVERYWHERE. They're like an Evil Empire in suits. :mad:

[AgentTofu]

Hatred for Lawyers has always baffled me. They are here to work for you, ensuring correct trials and worthwhile civil suits. All of these showboaters end up getting thrown off the Bar anyhow. They play with fire, and they get burned.

[Yeahman]

Makes sense that those responsible for making laws are those most versed in the law.

[Yeahman]

This may turn out to be the first election that my parents and many of my friends (including the very liberal) vote Republican. All the Democratic candidates oppose the FTA with Korea. It's not big news yet but the GOP can regain a large section of the AA vote if they take advantage of this opportunity.

Ms. Clinton, Thinking Small (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061201691.html)
Ms. Clinton objects that South Korean manufacturers sell many more cars here than do American carmakers over there. Never mind that the agreement requires Korea to remove discriminatory tariffs and taxes on U.S. cars; never mind that U.S. tariffs on Korean cars can "snap back" if Korea doesn't keep its word. Not good enough, says Ms. Clinton. What more could she have wanted for Detroit? She won't say.

[yoMAMA]

This may turn out to be the first election that my parents and many of my friends (including the very liberal) vote Republican. All the Democratic candidates oppose the FTA with Korea. It's not big news yet but the GOP can regain a large section of the AA vote if they take advantage of this opportunity.

Ms. Clinton, Thinking Small (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061201691.html)

she is playing the unions card.

john edwards is unabashedly protectionistic, and hillary don't want him to get all the union vote.

heck, even barack obama has joined the asian "unfair trade" bashing.

[Yeahman]

heck, even barack obama has joined the asian "unfair trade" bashing.
"I will work with colleagues in the Congress to force action and strengthen the ability of Americans losing out from Chinese currency manipulation to bring forward complaints for remedy through increased duties on Chinese goods." - Obama

[haplesshobo]

"I will work with colleagues in the Congress to force action and strengthen the ability of Americans losing out from Chinese currency manipulation to bring forward complaints for remedy through increased duties on Chinese goods." - Obama

I'm not really surprised by this, and was predicting this at the beginning of this thread.

[Chad]

seems like they usually start doing the exact opposite of what they promised once they are elected. clinton, the bushes, reagan, the whole lot of them. i guess it's fun for them to fuck with people like that.
im predicting another republican victory but not that it really matters.

[haplesshobo]

Obama grew up in the "pacific rim", both in the U.S and abroad, in hawaii, in indonesia, went to college in L.A for two years, and he talked about those experiences in Indonesia in both of his two books, so the guy has an understanding of Asia-Pacific that the other democrats probably lacks.

That's why I feel good about the guy.

Isn't that the same excuse a racist makes when they claim they can't be racist cause they're friends with a black person? Or, some white guy who makes disparging remarks about asian guys, but argues that he married an asian woman?

[yoMAMA]

is anybody starting to feel that Edwards will be more likely to win the presidential race than Hilary or Obama?

Edwards' campaign is pretty much DEAD.

seems like they usually start doing the exact opposite of what they promised once they are elected. clinton, the bushes, reagan, the whole lot of them. i guess it's fun for them to fuck with people like that.
im predicting another republican victory but not that it really matters.

yeah I'm pretty much disillusioned with politics.

fuck the democrats. they can lose another election if that's what they want.

Why should i care.