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.Originally Posted by Ken White
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?
Bookmarks