Sad but pretty predictable.Originally Posted by JMA
Japan backs down, will release Chinese fisherman
I just hope that the people who laughed when I predicted this are not in any significant decision making positions... anywhere.
It will fall into chaos as a result of renewed famine and poverty, resulting in military crackdowns.
There will be a military coup that displaces the current leadership, hopefully soon.
It will continue to remain a closed society, technologically dormant and otherwise insignificant.
The leadership will eventually make a misstep, forcing military action from the United States.
Japan backs down
Sad but pretty predictable.
Japan backs down, will release Chinese fisherman
I just hope that the people who laughed when I predicted this are not in any significant decision making positions... anywhere.
Well, I laughed..
Because it was totally predictable; stating the obvious, so to speak...
What else were they going to do to him in this day and age? It's diplomatic pushing and shoving; goes on constantly all over the world.
Fortunately, I am NOT in a decision making position, significant or otherwise.
I see a lot of Chinese pushing but not a lot of return shoving...Because it was totally predictable; stating the obvious, so to speak...
What else were they going to do to him in this day and age? It's diplomatic pushing and shoving; goes on constantly all over the world.
Fortunately, I am NOT in a decision making position, significant or otherwise.
Predictable of course, I don't see how it's particularly sad. These fishing boat incidents happen all the time in East Asia, not only with Chinese boats, and they always end the same way. It's really not a big deal, never has been.
All I laughed at was the idea that the S would or should get involved, which is of course absurd.
You did?
Yes, actually. When you wrote this:
All I wrote was this:China clearly feels it is strong enough to take on Japan over what was probably a contrived incident. Asia is watching this one very carefully. Will the US show some leadership or just sit on its hands?
But I laughed a bit while writing it. Maybe I should have added a "LOL", though it wasn't that loud.Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
[QUOTE=Dayuhan;107041]All I wrote was this:
The first would be this: U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance AgreementWhy would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
And then this: China – Japan strife spotlights a strategic U.S. vulnerability
in the tradition of dodgy local intel
There was a crusty old Chinese cab driver in Penang who would shake his fist and shout, "You! Japanese! Very bad!", and then cackle loudly if he happened to drive by a group of Japanese tourists, especially outside nightclubs. Apparently, most of his family had been killed during the war or whatever. The decorously behaved non-Bushido, post-Atomic tourists would ignore him or smile inscrutably.
His explanation of history was that the Japanese were originally a very stodgy mainland Chinese tribe who were perpetually made fun of by other Chinese, which probably means they were cheated and killed if the opportunity presented itself. So, this stick-up-the butt tribe eventually resettled en masse in the now Japanese islands and have hated China and its people ever since. So goeth the wisdom of cab drivers.
Erm -- I'm old and confuse easily...
Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA respondedAlso straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."
If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading...
Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not...
Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that.
As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA respondedAlso straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."
If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading...
Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not...
Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that.
It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.
It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.
Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why it is in the US best interest that it shows some leadership to prevent the current tensions between China and Japan to escalate?
Last edited by JMA; 09-25-2010 at 09:39 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks