4 ms·

Depends on what you mean by "taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan all have received the wrath of US military power and paid with enormous human and

by wyuenho 14y ago

Depends on what you mean by "taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan all have received the wrath of US military power and paid with enormous human and economic costs. The revival of a militaristic Japan is actually more likely than you think, tho still very unlikely. The reason is simple, most of the conditions that led to WWII still exist today. Japan is still controlled by a largely hawkish right-wing elite aristocratic class. Japan still brainwashes its population by denying war crimes committed during WWII. Japan still has virtually no natural resources enough to sustain its large population. Japan is still the premier military power in East Asia. Japan still spends an enormous amount of money on its military, however "defensive" it may be (I honestly don't know how a military that has helicopter carriers is defensive in nature). The only difference is that Japan is now militarily aligned with the U.S. and that China is no longer a political, technological, economical and military weakling. The Chinese would like to believe that the only thing standing between a peaceful Japan and a militaristic Japan is the PLA.

berntb 14y ago
>>"taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan all have received the wrath of US military power and paid With "take responsibility" in English afaik, it means that you take responsibility for the situation (often implied I believe -- that you caused). If something else is implied by the expression, please enlighten me. I have a hard time believing that Japan would start doing military adventures. It is, more or less, a functioning democracy. See the democratic peace theory, not even USA makes wars against democracies... (And about your examples... Syria could use some responsibility from the self proclaimed world cop. It is a horror story probably worse than ex Yugoslavia; a shame for Obama. It just doesn't fit his priorities.)
- wyuenho 14y ago
  One would say that external constraints imposed upon a criminal, which often includes said criminal taking action to correct his mistake in whatever form the imposer deems appropriate, as the criminal "taking responsibility". Germany is in no way the only country which has taken responsibility for war atrocities, but it is AFAIK, the only country which repent voluntarily and willingly. You may want to keep this in mind next time you play with semantics. Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. There is no such government in place in the world right now. The US, though it has not formally declared war against other "democracies", it has in many instances, conducted clandestine subversive activities that one nation may use as the casus belli. For example, in 2001, Haiti democratically reelected a Catholic priest as president for the third time. In 2004, with the backing of the CIA, the president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from office in a coup for reasons many accused as Aristide simply not being obedient to Western powers. The US has also openly supported many oppressive regimes in the past and present time. This is also one of the pretexts Al-Qaeda used as justifications of their attacks against the US. While Japan may not return to its imperial and militaristic roots in the past, it is perfect as a proxy vanguard against China and Russia. The US is good at proxy wars. As long as Japan is catering to the US's demands, the US may just turn a blind eye and condone Japan's rise as yet another aggressive nation in North East Asia. It only took Germany a decade to become Nazi Germany after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27etat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27etat
  - berntb 14y ago
    I'll leave the semantic discussion aside, since English is neither of ours native language. >>Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. Huh? Check the democratic peace theory on wikipedia. It says that democracies don't make wars. This "direct" and "total" democracy sounds like a place I'd be careful moving to... The problems with democracies is that foreigners can't vote, the behaviour outside can be as dirty as for a "traditional" country. But the home opinion cares more with more internationalisation, it has gotten much better over 50 years or so. (The Aristide example seems shocking, I thought such US behaviour ended with the cold war.) You present conspiracy theories about the US -- afaik, it isn't US interests where the sea borders around China are. They are not the ones playing the jingoism card.

by wyuenho 14y ago

berntb 14y ago

>>"taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan all have received the wrath of US military power and paid With "take responsibility" in English afaik, it means that you take responsibility for the situation (often implied I believe -- that you caused). If something else is implied by the expression, please enlighten me. I have a hard time believing that Japan would start doing military adventures. It is, more or less, a functioning democracy. See the democratic peace theory, not even USA makes wars against democracies... (And about your examples... Syria could use some responsibility from the self proclaimed world cop. It is a horror story probably worse than ex Yugoslavia; a shame for Obama. It just doesn't fit his priorities.)

wyuenho 14y ago
One would say that external constraints imposed upon a criminal, which often includes said criminal taking action to correct his mistake in whatever form the imposer deems appropriate, as the criminal "taking responsibility". Germany is in no way the only country which has taken responsibility for war atrocities, but it is AFAIK, the only country which repent voluntarily and willingly. You may want to keep this in mind next time you play with semantics. Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. There is no such government in place in the world right now. The US, though it has not formally declared war against other "democracies", it has in many instances, conducted clandestine subversive activities that one nation may use as the casus belli. For example, in 2001, Haiti democratically reelected a Catholic priest as president for the third time. In 2004, with the backing of the CIA, the president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from office in a coup for reasons many accused as Aristide simply not being obedient to Western powers. The US has also openly supported many oppressive regimes in the past and present time. This is also one of the pretexts Al-Qaeda used as justifications of their attacks against the US. While Japan may not return to its imperial and militaristic roots in the past, it is perfect as a proxy vanguard against China and Russia. The US is good at proxy wars. As long as Japan is catering to the US's demands, the US may just turn a blind eye and condone Japan's rise as yet another aggressive nation in North East Asia. It only took Germany a decade to become Nazi Germany after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27etat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27etat
- berntb 14y ago
  I'll leave the semantic discussion aside, since English is neither of ours native language. >>Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. Huh? Check the democratic peace theory on wikipedia. It says that democracies don't make wars. This "direct" and "total" democracy sounds like a place I'd be careful moving to... The problems with democracies is that foreigners can't vote, the behaviour outside can be as dirty as for a "traditional" country. But the home opinion cares more with more internationalisation, it has gotten much better over 50 years or so. (The Aristide example seems shocking, I thought such US behaviour ended with the cold war.) You present conspiracy theories about the US -- afaik, it isn't US interests where the sea borders around China are. They are not the ones playing the jingoism card.