Anti-US bullshit, was Re: Obstacles

6 posts ยท May 5 1998 to May 6 1998

From: Noah Doyle <nvdoyle@m...>

Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 01:47:01 EDT

Subject: Re: Anti-US bullshit, was Re: Obstacles

Not to be snide, but of _course_ the rape case was a major story in
Okinawa/Japan; a Japanese schoolgirl is raped by a black American GI.
No-one
could have designed a better example of the Japanese cultural/national
nightmare. It's just perfect. <heavy, leaden sarcasm>

Snideness and suspicion aside, how feasable do we think a union/alliance
between Japan and a re-United Kingdom is?  FT/DS/SG attempts to retain
most of the national character present in today's world (makes the game fun
and recognizable), and as a student of history, this seems REALLY unlikely.

From: Mike Looney - ionet <mlooney@i...>

Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 10:17:58 -0500

Subject: Re: Anti-US bullshit, was Re: Obstacles

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> The Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility in the early 80s was

Point of Order: A state of war exists between Israel and all Arab nations
except Egypt
and Jordan.  This is left over from 1948.   The fact that they stop
shooting at each other every once and a while tends to mask the fact that they
are in fact "at war", so the Iraqi strike was, in fact, with in the letter of
the law.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 22:41:36 GMT

Subject: Re: Anti-US bullshit, was Re: Obstacles

On Tue, 05 May 1998 10:17:58 -0500, Mike Looney - ionet
<mlooney@ionet.net> wrote:

> A state of war exists between Israel and all Arab nations except Egypt

Oops. Quite right. I stand corrected on that point. The attack on the nuclear
reactor was wholly legal.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 22:47:49 GMT

Subject: Re: Anti-US bullshit, was Re: Obstacles

> On Tue, 5 May 1998 01:47:01 EDT, NVDoyle <NVDoyle@aol.com> wrote:

> Snideness and suspicion aside, how feasable do we think a

Actually, I don't think it's all that unlikely. Britain was Japan's best ally
until the Washington Treaty. Japan patterned her navy after the Royal Navy
just prior to the Russo-Japanese War. Britain has a history of forgiving
enemies. At one time or another in the last two hundred years, Britain has
fought the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Italians, the
Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese. At one point or another in the last
two hundred years Britain has been allied with the French, the Germans, the
Dutch, the Spanish, the Italians, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese.

Given the right circumstances, I can see Britain and Japan allying again
during a conflict. I also understand that the Japanese have a real love of
anything Scottish (similar clan system, both cultures have strong feelings on
hospitality, both cultures have a warrior tradition, and both cultures wear
traditional garb for special occassions).

From: Joe Banderet <bigjoe@a...>

Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:03:20 -0500

Subject: Re: Anti-US bullshit, was Re: Obstacles

Plus, I always thought "all was fair in love and war".

> Mike Looney - ionet wrote:

> Allan Goodall wrote:

From: Jonathan white <jw4@b...>

Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 08:58:54 +0100

Subject: Re: Anti-US bullshit, was Re: Obstacles

> just prior to the Russo-Japanese War. Britain has a history of
That's because, at one point or other, we've fought more or less everybody.
If we weren't forgiving we'd have no-one left to talk to..
It's a consequence of the Empire being the size it was meant Britain had a
stake in more or less every conflict around the world for a good 100 years.
Since I've never seen an official map of the FT galaxy I couldn't say how big
the relative 'control area' of the NAC is but it seems a fairly common sense
view that the more neighbours you have the more fights you get
into :).

                        TTFN
                                Jon