AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-10-24, 01:06   Link #4461
npcomplete
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Hawk View Post
Well they had the real deal in thier collection. (90% fiction and the last 10% real child porn) But yeah, log out before leaving your PC!
They would've been in trouble even without the real images since Canada bans and criminalizes drawn/virtual child porn as well (where "child" = anyone depicted to be under 18).
npcomplete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-24, 01:48   Link #4462
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
FUJI TV (Japan) live news broadcast demonstrating Microsoft's Windows 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT9c_...layer_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbJGz...layer_embedded
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-24, 02:12   Link #4463
npcomplete
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
FUJI TV (Japan) live news broadcast demonstrating Microsoft's Windows 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT9c_...layer_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbJGz...layer_embedded
the touchscreen one was hilarious

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/23/l...big-thumbs-up/
npcomplete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-24, 03:51   Link #4464
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Kira01 View Post
U.S. prods Japan anew on Futemma, Okada favors transfer to Kadena



Unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to realize that relocating the current military facility from one place to another is very unacceptable as that it would be like pushing the issue of noise pollution and trouble from one region to another, shifting it onto people residing in a different location. If the ones living around the current military facility agrees, the ones living the current relocation regions will no doubt disagree. Thus, there is not a better location than Guam which is American territory. Choosing any other location aside from Guam will provoke angry locals as that nobody is stupid enough to welcome foreign soldiers that claim hosting the military facility for the sake of preventing North Korean invasion or Chinese military aggression when those scenarios has an extremely low chance of occurring.

----
Guam is too far away. The US couldn't intervene quickly to honor their commitments in the area. The whole reason the US has a base in Okinawa in the first place is that it's a very strategic area. Besides, just Because Guam is US territory doesn't mean the people there want yet another military base either. Even where I live, in the continental US, there's a movement to close the base here Having a jet fighter fly at only a few hundred feet above your house tends to annoy people. It also makes the whole house shake by the way. I'm speaking from experence there too. Still, it doesn't have much support because of how vital the base is to the economy here, but if the government decided to greatly expand the base there would be a lot of resistance. The only place it wouldn't be an issue is someplace that doesn't have a local population.

Also, could you use a source other than Kyodo news in the future? They don't allow full access to stories in english without a subscription, and apparently only offer subscriptions to "corporate clients".

Quote:
China's concern is never Taiwan or South Korea. Taiwan is pretty much their sovereignty while South Korea, on the other is a different nation that have sour ties with them. Sour ties don't necessary mean China will be invading them out of the blue. There is no catch to it unless you consider damaging bilateral ties and the deterioration of their economy as positive things. Generally, the chances of a military conflict breaking out between China and Taiwan is unrealistic and will not happen while South Korea as the possibility would be even more unrealistic. If you mean Tibet or Xinjiang, I think that is totally irrelevant to Okinawa as that those locations are in the mountainous regions and should have no impact with the relocation of a major base in Okinawa. In fact, nobody wants to intervene on those military conflicts either.
Once again, Taiwan is not a part of the People's Republic of China. The PRC may claim sovereignty over Taiwan, but that's really no different than North Korea claiming sovereignty over South Korea, execpt that China's economy is big enough that other nations say yeah sure, whatever you say officially, while still dealing with Taiwan unofficially. The US does have an unofficial agreement with Taiwan to defend it in the event of Chinese attack. Once again Taiwan is not part of the PRC.



Quote:
You take too much consideration into official stuff when it actually don't matter. Although the PRC has not taken official control of Taiwan but that rogue province is currently under the control of the KMT whose relation can be compared with the United States and the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom is asking the world to help them against American imperialism, would you actually buy it? I wouldn't.
So are you admitting that Taiwan is a seperate nation here? Though even if you are, last I checked the US doesn't have thousands of missiles pointed at Britian and isn't claiming sovereignty over them. The PRC does have thousands of missiles pointed at Taiwan and is trying to claim sovereignty over them. If anything the relationship would be more like North and South Korea.



Quote:
You don't really understand how the world functions. The whole idea of tensions in the Taiwan strait is pretty much a typical chess piece that both the United States and China use to their advantage which means it is entirely irrelevant to Okinawa or that particular American military facility. First of all, there is no reason why China would attack Taiwan as that would harm their objectives which is to absorb their economy and also to emigrate their people into that rogue province in order to integrate themselves and control the place more naturally. Secondly, why would the United States help Taiwan from such an occurrence when it does not give them any advantages. There is no sympathy budget and there is no oil, why bother.. Personally, I think the military base would be best to be moved over to Guam which is American sovereignty. There is no need to fight against pre-emptive attacks as that those won't be happening.
Nothing exists in a vaccum. The US has an unofficial deal with Taiwan to help defend it in the event of invasion by China. China knows this. China wants control over Taiwan, everyone involved knows this. If the US moves it's major airbase in the region to Guam, then the US cannot intervene in the event of a Chinese attack for at least a day, assuming Japan keeps said airbase in operational condition and agrees to allow the US use of the base. Thus China is now free to pursue a harder line against Taiwan and apply more pressure since the US isn't there to help out in the event of Chinese attack. Now Taiwan has two options, either give in, or push back. If Taiwan does something like officially declare independence, it would likely lead to war.

On the other hand, if the US relocates the base to another island closer to Taiwan, China sees the US now has an airbase closer to Taiwan, China then tries to figure out what this means. Putting an airbase close enough to Taiwan that less refueling is needed for the US fighters, and the shorter trip means faster turn around time, which in turn means more missions can be flown. Does this mean the US is making a new commitment to defend Taiwan? Maybe an offical declaration of independence is imminent? The simple act of moving the base closer to Taiwan applies pressure to China. Now China has two options, Conceed or push back. Note for both these scenerios, nations rarely pick the conceed option even if they think they'll lose.



Quote:
Why would the United States move the Okinawan military facility over to South Korea when there is already one over there!?
The US wants these forces in the region. That's why they're there in the first place. If Japan says they don't want them any more, then the US would naturally look to other nations in the region. There's not exactly a lot of options there, it's basicly South Korea, Taiwan, or the Phillipines. Taiwan is out of the question politically, as it's basicly saying fuck you to the PRC. The Phillipines is possible, but the US has a treaty that states the US won't base forces there so that will have to be renegotiated and bases would probably have to be built from scratch. South Korea already has US forces in it as you say, which means there are already airfields they can move some fighters too. Plus US airpower in South Korea is more ground attack oriented with A-10s and F-16s. The reason for that should be obvious. Realisticly though, The US would probably want to split the forces it's moving between South Korea and the Phillippines. Okinawa really is a strategic position.



Quote:
How is it any different? Hosting a military base is like legalizing an occupation after receiving some threats. Why do another nation have to host a military base for some random excuse that nobody agrees aside from the pro-American crowd? Its either the North Korean invasion or the China military aggression but in the end, the truth is that those possibilities and scenarios are most likely fabrications. Instead, the real reason why the American soldiers are there is to monitor and prevent Japan from building nukes rather than staying under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. More over, doing something so trivial gets those American soldiers the sympathy budget, as well as the good image to the world that the United States actually care about their allies and would protect them from rogue states. Like the American saying.. One stone, three birds. That military facility in Okinawa only benefits the United States.
You do realize that makes no sense, right? First off, how exactly are US soldiers based in Okinawa supposed to monitor anything? Something like that, if it were happening, would be done with intelligence assests, not troops. Second off, the Nuclear umnbrella isn't a physical thing that needs to be foward deployed. The US forces that are there are not the US forces that would deploy nuclear weapons. The only possible way that would work is if you believe that the US forces there are basicly being set up for use as a sacrifice so in event of a war against Japan by someone, the US troops there would be attacked first so the US government can sell a war as not just defending an ally but avenging our own troops who were attacked and killed. The only forces the US needs in Japan to have it under the "nuclear umbrella" is a few guys to talk to the JSDF commanders to coordinate any use of nukes.

Quote:
Well.. The idea of moving the Okinawan military facility over to Guam is definitely not a major change but a trivial one yet the United States will not accept it. It is beyond my understanding. I cannot comprehend.
How is it not a major change to relocate the largest airgroup in the US air force over a thousand miles south east and effectively out of the theater? Moving it anywhere is going to be major. The facilities would have to be built to house the fighters. As for the ground forces, half of them are being moved to Guam already. Moving the rest would require additional expansion of the bases there. Like I said before, the terms major and minor or vague, but you can probably consider major as requiring congress to approve more funds. That would definately fall under that definition of major. Of course the current deal isn't going to move the fighters, so reviewing it won't address that at all.

As I said, Japan's best option here is to say they're going ahead with the current deal, but want talks on a new deal for the rest of the forces in the region. Once the US has already moved half their ground troops to Guam, the US would probably be more willing to move the rest. Moving the airbase would require a new deal anyway. Get something done now then talk aboutn the rest later is better than get nothing done now and talk about everything later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnieS View Post
Wait... I thought that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation between the U.S. and Japan only commits both countries to assist in terms of Japan being attacked? There is a clause on the U.S. basing troops on Japanese soil, but treaty-wise and while it likely has to considered in light of the Cold War, it has more to do with how the citizens are to be treated.
True, but I'm talking more about how such a move would possibly be seen by other nations in the region. My whole point is that more than just US-Japanese relations are involved here and moving the base will effect the entire region.

Quote:
The basing of foreign troops on native soil is always a sensitive subject, IMHO, and I think that recently, there had been at least a couple of U.S. bases in Central Asia being forced to close when the countries' leaders said no. The U.S. also still needs help and support for Afghanistan as well, which hasn't been moving in the "Great!" direction. Driving away Japan (a known ally in the region) is not a good way to maintain a global presence.
True enough. However, I don't really think it's the case here that the US is driving away Japan. The disagreement over basing rights in Okinawa is a big issue, but it doesn't strike me as an alliance breaking one. The people of Okinawa are understandably upset about it, but I don't see how the current japanese government saying stop while review this is going to benefit them either. It's basicly maintaining the status quo until said review is complete, which could take a very long time.

Quote:
OTOH, if the U.S. is going to isolate itself again (think post-WWI), this wouldn't be a problem. A move out of Japan would likely cause South Koreans to want U.S. troops out as well, but that is a smaller problem given the fact North Korea isn't the best neighbor to have.
True, if the US is planning to isolate itself again. Really though, I'm not sure how that would benefit anyone.

Quote:
For North Korea, having U.S. troops based on Japan has not stopped it from testing its missiles or selling weapons (excl. the ship boarding bit being allowed now). Anti-missiles use is better placed, IMHO, in South Korea where it is easier to track, on ships where they can be easily moved, or in places like Alaska, Guam, Hawaii or the West Coast when the targets are better known. Having orbital weapons platforms is better, but not too likely to happen.
Of course it hasn't, why would it be expected to? On the other hand North Korea hasn't actually attacked anyone since the end of the Korean war. It might be questionable if they would if US forces weren't in the area, but they certainly haven't with those forces there.

Quote:
As for China, I don't see how much having U.S. bases in Japan that will stop it from being aggressive to countries like Russia, Vietnam or India if it wants to. Taiwan is not a huge deal, esp. if China is willing to spend the missiles to allow its marines to land onshore; Taiwan is looked more as a province that has wandered away as well, IMHO; a peaceful reunion is more preferred given they are still seen as being "one of us". South Korea... Kind of hard to say. From day-to-day fiction writings, the tone tends to be derogatory, and there doesn't seem to be much from the central government or its propaganda organs. On the "what does South Korea has to offer" front, there doesn't look to be much that it cannot get by corporate theft or purchases elsewhere? Physical threats to the Chinese mainland can be placed elsewhere, esp. with enough fuel available; having bases close by just means you need less, but then you need to deal with faster counterattacks.
I wouldn't worry too much about China being aggressive towards Russia. They can take care of themselves. Same with India. Vietnam didn't go well for China last time they invaded, though a huge force disparity has developed in the meantime. Still, China doesn't have much interest in Vietnam right now.

On the plus side for the U.S., sales of weapons like the PAC-3 should go up, esp. when you include training, weapon reloads and maintenance contracts in the bill. A plus for the U.S. arms industry.

Quote:
You actually do not need as big a military presence for China to succeed in taking Taiwan, esp. if you can work out a deal with the U.S. in advance. If I was involved in the Taiwanese government, I would be looking to get as much military tech of my own as well as getting spies into China's military high command and central government. Trusting anyone else for your own safety is just risky.
Yes, it is risky. The problem is Taiwan doesn't have offical recognition. The US will sell them arms, but nothing too advanced because they don't want to disrupt the current situation. Imagine China's reaction if the US sold Taiwan say 50 F-15s, and signed a deal for future F-35 sales.

Quote:
A move out of Japan by the U.S. could mean a decrease in military spending by China, which the U.S. would like to see; OTOH, continued spending in that case could mean China has bad intentions elsewhere (like Russia and India). Looking like you are sacrificing Taiwan in this case, esp. if you convince the country that you are still helping it, could be worth the gamble.
It's possible that China could cut funding, but it never seems to work that way. Plus even if we discount the whole Taiwan thing, China would still want a more modern military. The vast majority of their forces are obsolete. As for Russia, assuming it was anything more than a border dispute, China going to war with them would be disasterous. China outnumbers Russia, but Russia can pretty effectively cut off China's oil and of course has all those nukes. With India, it'd probably just end up a bloody stalemate.

Quote:
I'm also not sure how much the U.S. citizens actually care these days about the treaty to protect Taiwan...
Probably not all that much. I doubt the US population would support a long war. Though a war against a defined enemy is something the US much prefers over COIN operations.

Quote:
Didn't the newly elected officials representing the area came into office on the promise that they would review the base move? It would be a shame to go back on that promise now, esp. if that just gets the voters angrier. It increases the chances of a worse hard-liner being placed into office, IMHO.
True, but while stopping to review it might make the voters happy for now, if that review isn't actually accomplishing anything and the US troops that wold have been moved are still there after they were supposed to start being withdrawn under the current plan, those same voters could quickly turn on the new officials. Withdrawing that many troops can't be done overnight. Go with the current plan as a step one, and talk about future moves while that's being carried out.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-24, 04:45   Link #4465
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
FUJI TV (Japan) live news broadcast demonstrating Microsoft's Windows 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT9c_...layer_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbJGz...layer_embedded
Windows 7 is just fail man. My friend bought a copy on the launch date and had problems using it already.

But Nanami Madobe is still cute.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-24, 14:05   Link #4466
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Japan to Say U.S. Relevant to Asia Grouping Idea

Quote:
Japan will stress that U.S. involvement is important to its idea of forming an East Asian Community when it pitches the concept to Asian leaders this weekend, a top government official said on Friday.

The move could be seen as an attempt to ease growing worries about friction over the long-planned reorganisation of the U.S. military presence in Japan, the first big test of ties between Washington and Japan's month-old government.

Washington is also wary about being excluded from the Asian regional grouping as Japan's new government vows to steer a diplomatic course less dependant on its closest security ally, while seeking to deepen ties with Asian neighbours.
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
On the other hand, if the US relocates the base to another island closer to Taiwan, China sees the US now has an airbase closer to Taiwan, China then tries to figure out what this means. Putting an airbase close enough to Taiwan that less refueling is needed for the US fighters, and the shorter trip means faster turn around time, which in turn means more missions can be flown. Does this mean the US is making a new commitment to defend Taiwan? Maybe an offical declaration of independence is imminent? The simple act of moving the base closer to Taiwan applies pressure to China. Now China has two options, Conceed or push back. Note for both these scenerios, nations rarely pick the conceed option even if they think they'll lose.
Why is Taiwan so important? Its just a tiny island in the middle of nowhere. I still cannot comprehend as to why it is even relevant to the relocation of a military facility off of Okinawa to Guam, makes very little sense..

Quote:
The US wants these forces in the region. That's why they're there in the first place. If Japan says they don't want them any more, then the US would naturally look to other nations in the region. There's not exactly a lot of options there, it's basicly South Korea, Taiwan, or the Phillipines. Taiwan is out of the question politically, as it's basicly saying fuck you to the PRC. The Phillipines is possible, but the US has a treaty that states the US won't base forces there so that will have to be renegotiated and bases would probably have to be built from scratch. South Korea already has US forces in it as you say, which means there are already airfields they can move some fighters too. Plus US airpower in South Korea is more ground attack oriented with A-10s and F-16s. The reason for that should be obvious. Realisticly though, The US would probably want to split the forces it's moving between South Korea and the Phillippines. Okinawa really is a strategic position.
I don't think the United States has the guts to say some negative to the PRC when they have most of the US Treasury Bonds. As for the Phillipines, I don't think its such a great idea as that it is too far away to even be considered a strategic position. More importantly, why is this even necessary?

Quote:
How is it not a major change to relocate the largest airgroup in the US air force over a thousand miles south east and effectively out of the theater? Moving it anywhere is going to be major. The facilities would have to be built to house the fighters. As for the ground forces, half of them are being moved to Guam already. Moving the rest would require additional expansion of the bases there. Like I said before, the terms major and minor or vague, but you can probably consider major as requiring congress to approve more funds. That would definately fall under that definition of major. Of course the current deal isn't going to move the fighters, so reviewing it won't address that at all.
Major change? Wouldn't it be a better idea to make use of the sympathy budget, get the Guam facilities all built and relocate them there in one go? I mean.. The congress should be able to dish out some funds too if this is for the best of the region. Guam needs military facilities and equipment to prepare against military aggression from rogue states and thus, for the congress to dish out fundings and for Japan to dish out the sympathy budget should be perfectly fine. Of course, I don't think the relocation to Guam will be possible when Washington is now intensifying the pressure on the Futenma relocation issue.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-24, 15:22   Link #4467
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Windows 7 is just fail man. My friend bought a copy on the launch date and had problems using it already.

But Nanami Madobe is still cute.
It must be S**y fault.

HP desktop touchscreens work flawlessly.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-24, 21:54   Link #4468
LynnieS
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Kira01 View Post
Why is Taiwan so important? Its just a tiny island in the middle of nowhere. I still cannot comprehend as to why it is even relevant to the relocation of a military facility off of Okinawa to Guam, makes very little sense..
I see the "protection" of Taiwan as honoring the U.S.'s commitment to the country. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 essentially recognized Taiwan as a country and that the U.S. will "officially" frown upon any non-peaceful attempts on Taiwan as being a threat to the region.

In order to be able to project force that can convince anyone *cough* China *cough* to not attack Taiwan, having a base in Okinawa is preferred, IMHO, over South Korea or Guam. Distance-wise, it's shorter. Putting one into the Philippines would be better, but I doubt that country will allow it; the same for Vietnam or Laos.

Why the U.S. does not base troops in Taiwan itself is odd. I can only think that it does not want to PO China more so instead, it makes Japan (an officially recognized country in the UN and an important economic influence in the region/world) unhappy?? Even if Japan forgets the insult, which I really doubt, its leaders, if forced out by the voters, will be replaced by those taking on a harder stance, IMHO. The U.S. is just delaying and worsening the outcome - unless it can actually convince the Okinawa people its troops are now better behaved.

(Whether the troops were badly behaved in the past is of no consequence. What matters is how they were perceived. If the Americans go off on how well their troops behave in public, the Japanese will just harden their stance even faster and more; that's negotiation.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Kira01 View Post
I don't think the United States has the guts to say some negative to the PRC when they have most of the US Treasury Bonds. As for the Phillipines, I don't think its such a great idea as that it is too far away to even be considered a strategic position. More importantly, why is this even necessary?
The Philippines is actually fairly close to Taiwan, I believe, but housing troops there will be harder. Japan is more under the U.S.'s thumb given its constitution mandate to not be able to project force for anything outside of self-defense. While I don't see that continuing past 20 more years or so, for now, it's still easier to get Japan to do the U.S.'s bidding.

As for China's holding U.S. debt, yes, but Japan is still the 2nd biggest holder. US$731 billion by Japan vs US$797 billion by China. How that will change next week, the week of 26 October (when the Treasury is looking to sell US$180 billion in debt (just in one week!?!)), no idea.

The easiest way to deal with that is to just devalue the U.S. Dollar, IMHO, with the next being to ignore or delay all debt. Both are really bad, though, and pretty much guarantees some harsh questions and words to be sent to the White House regarding its handling of the Treasury - if not outright impeachment hearings to be held.
__________________
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!
LynnieS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 08:31   Link #4469
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
Quote:
Baghdad car bombs near government offices kill 106

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...CiqGwD9BI4N600

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraqi hospital and security officials say at least 106 people have been killed in what is Iraq's worst bombing of the year.
The powerful blasts went off less than a minute apart Sunday in parking lots near the headquarters of the Baghdad provincial administration and the Ministry of Justice building.
Officials said there were so many wounded that even civilian cars were used to bring the wounded to hospitals across the capital.
The hospital and security officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
thats a pretty HUGE number of deaths for a couple of car bombs
and the death toll is pretty much entirely iraqis

makes one wonder why so many people are angry at the americans for being in iraq when the terrorists actions make it clear that they are mearly bullies who attack their own people who are just trying to live their lives
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 08:54   Link #4470
LynnieS
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
thats a pretty HUGE number of deaths for a couple of car bombs
and the death toll is pretty much entirely iraqis

makes one wonder why so many people are angry at the americans for being in iraq when the terrorists actions make it clear that they are mearly bullies who attack their own people who are just trying to live their lives
It's now up to 136 deaths. From this article, it looks like the explosions took place in 2 parking garages, and these might have taken down the administrative offices next door, which led to the many deaths. No claims of responsibility as of yet, though.
__________________
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!
LynnieS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 11:18   Link #4471
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnieS View Post
It's now up to 136 deaths. From this article, it looks like the explosions took place in 2 parking garages, and these might have taken down the administrative offices next door, which led to the many deaths. No claims of responsibility as of yet, though.
Al-Qaeda. Diverting attention and resources, especially intelligence and counter-insurgency from Pakistan and a few other places in the ME while they relocate. The Pakistani offensive must have really hit a spot that really hurts them.

IMO, they can buy themselves more time to hide if they attack Israel through Palestine. Breaking the Peace accord, then pissing off the Mossad to join the offensive can start another quarrel between the rest of ME and Israel. This buys them enough time to shift their stuff.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 11:30   Link #4472
autobachs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
thats a pretty HUGE number of deaths for a couple of car bombs
and the death toll is pretty much entirely iraqis

makes one wonder why so many people are angry at the americans for being in iraq when the terrorists actions make it clear that they are mearly bullies who attack their own people who are just trying to live their lives


How can this be? Don't these militants understand that Bush/Cheney won in Iraq; that the war is over and we won? Don't they understand that the surge was the final nail in their coffin? Why, it's the worst possible scenario. The mighty U.S. has defeated the insurgency in Iraq but those insurgents, they just won't play fair and accept defeat. Very bad form on their part, to be sure, not to mention the very untidy situation they're creating. We can always send more troops and, considering our President's propensity for reach out to the other side, perhaps Mr. Cheney can be coaxed out of retirement and assigned to handle this little problem. With his proven capabilities in making foreign policy, fighting wars, and developing new intelligence gathering techniques, surely we'll have things resolved in no time.
autobachs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 11:39   Link #4473
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
How can this be? Don't these militants understand that Bush/Cheney won in Iraq; that the war is over and we won? Don't they understand that the surge was the final nail in their coffin? Why, it's the worst possible scenario. The mighty U.S. has defeated the insurgency in Iraq but those insurgents, they just won't play fair and accept defeat. Very bad form on their part, to be sure, not to mention the very untidy situation they're creating. We can always send more troops and, considering our President's propensity for reach out to the other side, perhaps Mr. Cheney can be coaxed out of retirement and assigned to handle this little problem. With his proven capabilities in making foreign policy, fighting wars, and developing new intelligence gathering techniques, surely we'll have things resolved in no time.
You, sir, have just won the Ridiculously Hilarious Bullshit Award of the Day.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 14:09   Link #4474
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
You, sir, have just won the Ridiculously Hilarious Bullshit Award of the Day.
His intend might have been ironic or satiric .
__________________

ganbaru is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 14:29   Link #4475
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Japan Urges ASEAN to Include US

Quote:
Japanese spokesman Kazuo Kodama said the prime minister told the Association of Southeast Asian Nations that the Japan-U.S. alliance was the fundamental cornerstone of Japan's diplomatic policy.

"At the same time, he said, he now upholds a long-term vision of establishing an East Asia Community in accordance with the open regionalism," said Kazuo Kodama. "He very much intends to promote intra-regional cooperation in east Asia."
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnieS View Post
I see the "protection" of Taiwan as honoring the U.S.'s commitment to the country. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 essentially recognized Taiwan as a country and that the U.S. will "officially" frown upon any non-peaceful attempts on Taiwan as being a threat to the region.
And why is Okinawa responsible for hosting an American military base and dishing out the sympathy budget for the sake of a Chinese rogue province? More over, if Taiwan needs the protection so badly, the Okinawan military facility should be relocated over to Taiwan where their people can experience noise pollution and also enjoy dishing out the sympathy budget as this is entirely irrelevant to Okinawa and the Okinawans.

Quote:
Why the U.S. does not base troops in Taiwan itself is odd. I can only think that it does not want to PO China more so instead, it makes Japan (an officially recognized country in the UN and an important economic influence in the region/world) unhappy?? Even if Japan forgets the insult, which I really doubt, its leaders, if forced out by the voters, will be replaced by those taking on a harder stance, IMHO. The U.S. is just delaying and worsening the outcome - unless it can actually convince the Okinawa people its troops are now better behaved.
The problem is not that the American soldiers are doing bad things over there; in fact, that is the action of the minority but instead.. It is the sight of American soldiers that people greatly despised. You can almost compare this to the sight of Muslims on American soil or Americans in the Middle East. Regardless of what they try to do now, most people do hope that they relocate their military base over to Guam where everyone will be happy aside from the American government who needs to back down on that firm stance of imperialism along with dishing out fundings.

Quote:
As for China's holding U.S. debt, yes, but Japan is still the 2nd biggest holder. US$731 billion by Japan vs US$797 billion by China. How that will change next week, the week of 26 October (when the Treasury is looking to sell US$180 billion in debt (just in one week!?!)), no idea.
This is totally irrelevant as that the United States do realize that Japan would not sell their treasury debt just to mess with their economy as that it is shared. If the American economy takes a toll, the Japanese economy will go down it. However, if China pulls it off, they don't seem to care much which is where the problem exists. This prevents the United States from moving their base over to Taiwan like they claim. However.. What does this have anything to do with Guam!?
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 14:33   Link #4476
autobachs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
I cannot believe this news didn't make it in this thread

Obama adminnistration declares war on Fox News.
Don't you dare try to fact check them, or they will make you pay!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ws-1925819282/

Quote:
The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news."

On Sunday, Fox's Chris Wallace retorted: "We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to 'FOX News Sunday' to talk about this or anything else."

The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."

"She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest."

"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes -- you know, you engage in the debate.

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett."

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Tse-tung, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers."

"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."

Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: "This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off."

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do," Rove added. "That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon."

Media columnist David Carr of the New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."

"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence," Carr wrote over the weekend. "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year."

He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."

How dare Chris Wallace, a decent old school journalist with decades of service on the broadcast news, fact-checked Anita Dunn?! Wallace was right! Anita skewed the facts and was bagged fair and square. The penalty for Wallace is defamation of his employers! An assault on the advertisers and denigration of a network that actually does make an effort at putting up both sides of a political story! Never an entire major network, and never did they call a major network "the enemy", "the opposition", or "a wing of the opposition party!"
autobachs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 15:33   Link #4477
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
How can this be? Don't these militants understand that Bush/Cheney won in Iraq; that the war is over and we won? Don't they understand that the surge was the final nail in their coffin? Why, it's the worst possible scenario. The mighty U.S. has defeated the insurgency in Iraq but those insurgents, they just won't play fair and accept defeat. Very bad form on their part, to be sure, not to mention the very untidy situation they're creating. We can always send more troops and, considering our President's propensity for reach out to the other side, perhaps Mr. Cheney can be coaxed out of retirement and assigned to handle this little problem. With his proven capabilities in making foreign policy, fighting wars, and developing new intelligence gathering techniques, surely we'll have things resolved in no time.
i dont quite get your point
who do you think they are killing with these car bombs
its not americans
its their own people

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
IMO, they can buy themselves more time to hide if they attack Israel through Palestine. Breaking the Peace accord, then pissing off the Mossad to join the offensive can start another quarrel between the rest of ME and Israel. This buys them enough time to shift their stuff.
what peace accord
also, hamas and Al-Qaeda dont mix
hamas kills people who declare loyalty to Al-Qaeda
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 17:27   Link #4478
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 33
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
I cannot believe this news didn't make it in this thread

Obama adminnistration declares war on Fox News.
Don't you dare try to fact check them, or they will make you pay!
You sound like a Fox News reporter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
How dare Chris Wallace, a decent old school journalist with decades of service on the broadcast news, fact-checked Anita Dunn?! Wallace was right! Anita skewed the facts and was bagged fair and square. The penalty for Wallace is defamation of his employers! An assault on the advertisers and denigration of a network that actually does make an effort at putting up both sides of a political story! Never an entire major network, and never did they call a major network "the enemy", "the opposition", or "a wing of the opposition party!"
You make a fuss about that stupid channel. Thats unbelievable. You are exactly what they want, a brainwashed, distracted by red herrings tool of the biggest lobbies in the US.
Those propaganda news are really something for the weak of mind.
Please don't feel offended - I know you are a good guy at heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
How can this be? Don't these militants understand that Bush/Cheney won in Iraq; that the war is over and we won? Don't they understand that the surge was the final nail in their coffin? Why, it's the worst possible scenario. The mighty U.S. has defeated the insurgency in Iraq but those insurgents, they just won't play fair and accept defeat.
Nice use of sarcasm here. Everyone knows you cannot win a war if you can neither win the hearts of your enemy or destroy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
Very bad form on their part, to be sure, not to mention the very untidy situation they're creating.
That was good, I really had to laugh. Actually they are just doing what they always did when they were not oppressed by some ruthless dictator. Its their way to gain power and influence in the power structure that Iraq is today (after the power vacuum that was created by overthrowing Saddam).

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
We can always send more troops...
If "we" stands for the USA... no you can't. The USA is economically at its limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobachs View Post
...and, considering our President's propensity for reach out to the other side, perhaps Mr. Cheney can be coaxed out of retirement and assigned to handle this little problem. With his proven capabilities in making foreign policy, fighting wars, and developing new intelligence gathering techniques, surely we'll have things resolved in no time.
Ah I see it... He will screw up (like always). And the only difference is, that Fox News will sell it as a win. Great.
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 17:58   Link #4479
autobachs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Before everyone tries to kill the messenger that is FOX news:


According to PEJ statistics, Fox had the most balanced coverage of the past election. Now, PEJ (which general reflects the left leaning media itself) asserted in its comments that Fox was a right wing counter to left wingMSNBC and CNN was in the middle. But... that's only if you assume that the normal, "unbiased" coverage of the campaign should have been more negative to McCain as a matter of course. Look at the total media numbers on the bottom to see how "balanced" the coverage was not. CNNs numbers are close to the TOTAL COVERAGE. Actually, so are MSNBCs where McCain is concerned. Hell, Fox was even tilted a bit more towards Obama Smiley

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1

(FOXNEWS)
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%

(MSNBC)
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%

TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
Positive Obama Stories 36%
Positive McCain Stories 14%
Negative Obama Stories 29%
Negative McCain Stories 57%
autobachs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-25, 18:08   Link #4480
autobachs
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
and Here is another example of Fox news trying to live up to its motto

Project for Excellence in Journalism (a liberal leaning group, BTW) data that shows the NEWS at Fox tends to be more balanced.

For example, ONLY fox cared enough about basic journalism to debunk the 90 percent of Mexican crime guns come for the US spin. Or ACORN, or Van Jones, or anything critical of the administration other than "He's not liberal enough." Why, well, the liberal journalists at the other outlets favor gun control like they favor nationalized health care and the laundry list of moderate to far left positions. Even the liberals admit it:

Quote:
SCARBOROUGH: But Mika, based on what you've argued through the years, Fox is more intellectually honest than every other network, because you say we all have biases, we should put it out on the table. What is more dangerous, a network that says yes, we're center-right, or a news organization, let's just take one, CBS, that says we're objective, we're down the middle --

BRZEZINSKI: -- but we're all liberals and Democrats.

SCARBOROUGH: You know that everyone you worked for, they were all liberals, they were all pro-abortion, they were all pro-gun control, they were all, I mean, let me ask you this question: when did you work at CBS?

BRZEZINSKI: Collectively, over a course of 10 years.

SCARBOROUGH: Give me years.

BRZEZINSKI: '90, 2001 to 2007.

SCARBOROUGH: OK, how many people that you worked for at CBS do you think voted for George W. Bush? Of all the thousands you worked for, how many people at CBS do you think voted for George W. Bush?

BRZEZINSKI: A very small percentage.

SCARBOROUGH: Maybe 1%?

BRZEZINSKI: I don't know.

SCARBOROUGH: Can you think--seriously--you don't have, just use your insight, your inside head voice here, can you think seriously of one correspondent, of one producer, of one anchor, that was a George W. Bush fan?

BRZEZINSKI: I can. I can think of one, yes.

SCARBOROUGH: How many did you work for?

BRZEZINSKI: Many more than that. And that's my point. You're making my point.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...anchor-liberal

And it's more than just Mika especially since the Obama election made the bias impossible to ignore so there has been a bit of introspection and hand wringing.
autobachs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.