France dared to refuse to help and the French people got all the dirt been thrown over them. No more French fries and more of that nonsense, because they refused to fight together with the U.S. against the Iraqi.
In 1987 the
U.S.S. Stark was attacked by an Iraqi Mirage while patrolling waterlanes in the Persian Gulf in order to keep trade routes safe during the Iran-Iraq War. The Mirage fired an Exocet air-to-sea missile which struck the ship, killing and wounding more than 50 American sailors and setting fire to the hull. Both Mirages and Exocets are made in France and were sold by the French to the Iraqi government.
That's why dirt was thrown in their face. Saddam Hussein had been buying French ordinance and materials right up until the second war. The French didn't want to lose a source of income. Even
Time Magazine had articles all about the money trail that existed between Saddam and France (as well as Russia).
It wasn't because the French "dared" anything. Besides, the French have no right to judge the United States when they still own 1/4 of the supposedly "liberated" Comoros Islands and have a habit of arranging the assassination of any anti-French leaders who fight for more independence of their nation. Apparently Neo-Colonialism isn't dead yet.
Sorry but I can't agree with you, I mean with : "It is between the U.S. and Iraq".
I don't agree with this statement either. I'm trying to point out other people's hypocrisy. Note my statement of "according to that rhetoric." It is rhetoric I had already stated that I do not accept. Hence, I don't believe that it is "just between the U.S. and Iraq."
gaijinalways said:
He said the opposite, that others could/should be involved and discuss issues like this.
Read my second response to Elizabeth. I think you both misread me here.
Obeika said:
GEL I apologize if I wasnt clear here, as "gaijinalways" points out and as I should have clearly stated everyone should get involved and help to find a amicable conclusion to this issue.
Again, I don't disagree with you. I think you guys misunderstood me.
caster51 said:
in japanese newspaer at that time , american soldeiers raped so many Japanese women
even after SF treaty , there were 1878 raping reported by american for 8 months, according to regular session of japanese House of Councillors
the woest one was raped by 27 american soldiers 1st sep 1945
What exactly are you trying to prove? That American soldiers are as horny and (possibly) racist as any other nation's? That many of them are uneducated brutes? That a few bad apples will ruin everything for everybody else, and make a bad name for everyone? Because that's about all that your statements seem to imply. There is no evidence for comfort women. Rape is not prostitution, it is something much different, and actually, far worse.
Deny what? Caster, you fail to state your premise every chance you get, instead throwing out random facts and bits of information from which you draw some vague and amorphous conclusion that somehow in your mind, exonerates Japan and condemns the United States and/or Allied countries. Or, at least, that's your typical
modus operandi.
If you think American soldiers raping Japanese civilians is an atrocity, I'd agree. Yes, it is! Those guys deserve to be court-martialed and thrown in the stockade for as long as they would had they raped an American civilian.
If you think that American soldiers sleeping with Japanese prostitutes is an atrocity, well, I urge you to wake up and smell Real Life and accept that wherever there are soldiers (no matter what nation they are from), they will be sleeping with prostitutes.
If you think that Americans set up a "comfort women" system comparable to the one the Japanese set up in Korea, well, I don't accept that, and consider the two arrangements to be completely different.
diceke said:
Now I wonder why some Americans can't discuss the topic without mentioning "Japanese this, Japanese that" on this very thread?
Maybe because some of us are tired of a number of people turning threads that are supposed to be about Japan into "let's all hate the U.S." threads.
In addition, I didn't try to turn this into a Japan-bashing session. This thread compares U.S. actions in Japan to Japanese actions in Korea by its very existence and the use of the buzzword "comfort women". I'd argue with Obeika that this thread shouldn't be split because these differences are an integral part of the thread.
Sukotto said:
Not since we siezed their assets. Now they are crying to get their hands on some $20 million, which is pocket-change when it comes to government budgets.
By the way, conquest usually involves direct rule. Japan rules itself, and is currently becoming more-and-more isolationist. As for protecting our commercial empire, go read Thucydides 5.84.1 to 5.111. And stop quoting Noam Chomsky. Those are obviously not your words.
So, yeah, close down Okinawa as a military installation, close all US military bases, close down the pentagon. time for a real peace dividend.
You really don't know much about war, peace, or global politics. I can't see how the United States shutting down its entire military-industrial complex will promote peace, especially in places like Africa, where wars are raging that have nothing to do with the United States. Where's your "peace dividend" now, sparky? It's really easy for slightly post-pubescent and barely educated armchair politicians to go around making axiomatic claims with only flimsy facts, faulty reasoning, and lots of cool, anti-Bush-bandwagon buzzwords to back them up. It seems that every idiot with a high school diploma or a Bachelors in something apparently thinks they know everything there is to know about life, politics, and war, despite the fact that greater minds then theirs have wrestled with these concepts since the dawn of recorded history.