Obama pledges to protect Japan against nuclear attacks

W O W..... first you bomb them back into the stone age and then now you want to protect them..... nice
(Grobar1, 14 February 2013 15:00)

No, it's nothing about Japan, N.Korea or S.Korea, it's about China and Russia :)

W O W..... first you bomb them back into the stone age and then now you want to protect them..... nice

In reality its blowing hot air by a president of a super power that is no longer capable of fighting its own wars, especially after losing in Iraq and now the imminent lose in Afghanistan with their NATO battle group. Never in history has this occurred thus making the US impotent on all fronts.

It all look domestically really good and that’s all because if it really pisses off China where it feels it needs to do something, all Beijing needs to do is pull all of its money out of the US and we have economic collapse.

America to defend Japan from a Nuclear attack... how ironic

(Ian, UK, 15 February 2013 10:02)

WMD were only a cover for a plan to remove Hussein that goes back to the early to mid 1980s. There was a fear that Saudi Arabia would become radical the US could lose its oil fields they held since the treaty of 1928. So Iraq was in their sights. The US bombed everything In Iraq except the buildings held by the Ministry for oil. They went into Iraq unprepared and disbanded the army, which they should have employed to keep order and then weeded out the people they did n not want. There was no insurgence in Iraq while Hussein was in charge. There was a void after the war for a period of time and the Islamists filled that void.
Yes the Iraqi army took a heavy toll because they had no air force or missiles of any consequences. All those western soldiers were lost with no contracts to show for those deaths. The Shiite leadership gave the most lucrative contracts to the Russians and Chinese – and they are having a slow go at it too because it’s so dangerous.
The UK was to get a share of the cream but Tony Blair knocked it back because it was too dangerous for UK firms. In other words the west got little to nothing, no cheap oil and no massive contracts for reconstructing Iraq. Yes Iraq buys goods from the Uk and other western countries but the prize was reconstruction followed by cheap oil. Iran has more influence in Iraq than the west today.

(sj, 14 February 2013 22:48)

I was never a supporter of the Iraq War but how was it a loss? We went in their for natural resources and regime change, we came out of Iraq with natural resources and regime change. Not to mention it was a blatant strategic military victory. Coalition forces lost 4,805 soldiers compared to Saddam's Army which lost 11,000 soldiers and 26,400 Iraqi Insurgents were killed (and 12,000 POW) following Saddam's removal from power. If anything Sadam's Army/ Regime and the Iraqi Insurgents took a proper heavy battering in the Iraq War.

The West didn't care about the instability which occurred across Iraq following the regime change where the locals decided to blow each other up. The amount of civilian casualties and refugees was a terrible and I would like to see Bush & Blair in the Hague to answer for their crimes.

Or do you think the Iraq War was a failure as no WMD were found even though they were invented to invade in the first place?

(sj, 15 February 2013 12:55)

I'm not disagreeing with that but you've still not explained how the US, UK, Australia ect lost the illegal War in Iraq.

B92 did not post my answer.
Yes militarily they won but they did not achieve one objective after that. They have no lucrative reconstruction contracts and no cheap oil yet they spent over $2 trillion in Iraq. WW2 was a win because they achieved their objectives.
The west bombed Iraqi infrastructure and after appointing a democratically elected government favorable to them, that government would give out lucrative reconstruction contracts to western firms. Also the west would get very cheap oil and gas. It was a win win scenario for them; they destroyed buildings and roads and Iraqi oil paid for reconstruction.
Today its Shiite led government in Iraq that is more loyal to Iran than anyone else.
That is the reason it is a loss. Even the new incoming US Secretary of Defence declared Iraq the worst disaster since Vietnam.

W O W..... first you bomb them back into the stone age and then now you want to protect them..... nice

W O W..... first you bomb them back into the stone age and then now you want to protect them..... nice
(Grobar1, 14 February 2013 15:00)

No, it's nothing about Japan, N.Korea or S.Korea, it's about China and Russia :)

In reality its blowing hot air by a president of a super power that is no longer capable of fighting its own wars, especially after losing in Iraq and now the imminent lose in Afghanistan with their NATO battle group. Never in history has this occurred thus making the US impotent on all fronts.

It all look domestically really good and that’s all because if it really pisses off China where it feels it needs to do something, all Beijing needs to do is pull all of its money out of the US and we have economic collapse.

(sj, 14 February 2013 22:48)

I was never a supporter of the Iraq War but how was it a loss? We went in their for natural resources and regime change, we came out of Iraq with natural resources and regime change. Not to mention it was a blatant strategic military victory. Coalition forces lost 4,805 soldiers compared to Saddam's Army which lost 11,000 soldiers and 26,400 Iraqi Insurgents were killed (and 12,000 POW) following Saddam's removal from power. If anything Sadam's Army/ Regime and the Iraqi Insurgents took a proper heavy battering in the Iraq War.

The West didn't care about the instability which occurred across Iraq following the regime change where the locals decided to blow each other up. The amount of civilian casualties and refugees was a terrible and I would like to see Bush & Blair in the Hague to answer for their crimes.

Or do you think the Iraq War was a failure as no WMD were found even though they were invented to invade in the first place?

(Ian, UK, 15 February 2013 10:02)

WMD were only a cover for a plan to remove Hussein that goes back to the early to mid 1980s. There was a fear that Saudi Arabia would become radical the US could lose its oil fields they held since the treaty of 1928. So Iraq was in their sights. The US bombed everything In Iraq except the buildings held by the Ministry for oil. They went into Iraq unprepared and disbanded the army, which they should have employed to keep order and then weeded out the people they did n not want. There was no insurgence in Iraq while Hussein was in charge. There was a void after the war for a period of time and the Islamists filled that void.
Yes the Iraqi army took a heavy toll because they had no air force or missiles of any consequences. All those western soldiers were lost with no contracts to show for those deaths. The Shiite leadership gave the most lucrative contracts to the Russians and Chinese – and they are having a slow go at it too because it’s so dangerous.
The UK was to get a share of the cream but Tony Blair knocked it back because it was too dangerous for UK firms. In other words the west got little to nothing, no cheap oil and no massive contracts for reconstructing Iraq. Yes Iraq buys goods from the Uk and other western countries but the prize was reconstruction followed by cheap oil. Iran has more influence in Iraq than the west today.

(sj, 15 February 2013 12:55)

I'm not disagreeing with that but you've still not explained how the US, UK, Australia ect lost the illegal War in Iraq.

America to defend Japan from a Nuclear attack... how ironic

B92 did not post my answer.
Yes militarily they won but they did not achieve one objective after that. They have no lucrative reconstruction contracts and no cheap oil yet they spent over $2 trillion in Iraq. WW2 was a win because they achieved their objectives.
The west bombed Iraqi infrastructure and after appointing a democratically elected government favorable to them, that government would give out lucrative reconstruction contracts to western firms. Also the west would get very cheap oil and gas. It was a win win scenario for them; they destroyed buildings and roads and Iraqi oil paid for reconstruction.
Today its Shiite led government in Iraq that is more loyal to Iran than anyone else.
That is the reason it is a loss. Even the new incoming US Secretary of Defence declared Iraq the worst disaster since Vietnam.