5 ms·

We should maybe be a bit careful with competitive nationalist rhetoric. Japan has US military bases; it is in some loose sense an occupied nation. It's doing re

We should maybe be a bit careful with competitive nationalist rhetoric. Japan has US military bases; it is in some loose sense an occupied nation. It's doing reasonably ok because we let it. (Imagine if the US had Chinese military bases, for "protection".) Japan is naturally kept from being too independent, but may be treated fine if obedient. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan) On the dissident end, it's common knowledge that Japan's weakness has been overstated. Left Business Observer interviewed Fingleton (http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S130530 http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S130530), and Chomsky often mentions it. (Never dug into the motivation though.)

impendia 13y ago
> It's doing reasonably ok because we let it. That's a rather startling claim, especially since the original argument is with respect to economic rather than military power. Care to back this up?
- calibraxis 13y ago
  What would you like me to expand upon? I think the common-sense notion is that forms of power are interlinked. (Economics means ability to produce; military means capacity to inflict violence.) Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang discusses the problems when we try to draw artificial, ideological boundaries between politics and economics; the analysis also applies to military. (http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/ha-joon-chang-and-mariana-mazzucato-rethinking-state http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/ha-joon-chang-and-ma...) And when the economic sanctions in Iraq caused a US journalist to ask Madeline Albright, "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" we see that economics can accomplish military objectives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Albright_interview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Albright...)
  - impendia 13y ago
    > What would you like me to expand upon? Suppose we immediately moved all of our military bases out of Japan. Are you predicting that the country would collapse, economically or otherwise? Is Japan otherwise dependent on us, except insofar as we are a large market for Japanese-made goods?
    - calibraxis 13y ago
      a) I did not make such a prediction. For what it's worth, Hideyoshi Kase mentioned my initial common-sense reaction: "If United States withdraws its forces from Japan, we will spend the next ten years re-arming in various ways, including acquiring nuclear weapons". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_Japan) b) Japan has significant weaknesses, like historic lack of natural resources. I imagine it has enormous dependences, and not just on the US. (Dunno how the recent finds of rare earth metals changes this.)
mason240 13y ago
The US worked very hard to restart the Japanese economy after WWII. To suggest that the US wants to keep them held down or "doing reasonably ok because we let it" is beyond silly. If a Japan in shambles was the goal, all the US had to do was just leave them alone after the war.
- calibraxis 13y ago
  You repeat the self-serving propaganda of the US as a charity. ("We spy on you to protect you!") When you say "If a Japan in shambles was the goal", that is a non-sequitur, because I explicitly said Japan is "doing reasonably ok because we let it". So being in shambles would not be the goal. This is an example of mechanically quoting arguments we're told to believe. If you'd like to learn more about post-WWII US planning, simply look up the Marshall Plan and George Kennan. If you're able to deal with dissident lit, this may inform you: (http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c11-s03.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c11-s03.html).
  - mason240 13y ago
    "This is an example of mechanically quoting arguments we're told to believe." And that is an example of when people who know they have no argument dismiss reality because it gets in the way of what they want to believe.
tsotha 13y ago
We have military bases in Japan because the Japanese people want US military bases in Japan. It allows them to focus on their economy without worrying about their strategic situation. If they change their minds and ask us to leave, we'll leave. SO the idea Japan is doing reasonable okay "because we let it" is a bit silly. US and Japanese interests coincide, for the moment. And yes, Japan has the most powerful navy in the Far East (aside from the US navy, of course) regardless of what they call it. But that's temporary - they'll be eclipsed by China over the next decade.
- calibraxis 13y ago
  > If they change their minds and ask us to leave, we'll leave. Now who's being a bit silly? :) If anyone could cite sources supporting such a strange position, presumably they would have by now. Let's take another example: "The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban-American Treaty was obtained by threat of force in violation of international law." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay) Of course the US does what it wants, because it's the military superpower. We don't ask people nicely if we could invade them, nor would we respect their votes on the matter. As for Japan, Okinawans want the US military off their land. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Prefecture#U.S._military_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Prefecture#U.S._militar...) Does the US hold votes, asking them if they wish to be occupied? Do we ask which other prefecture would prefer us to occupy them? In any case, that's all besides the point. Even if your claims were 100% correct (and there's areas I agree with), the point still stands: "It's doing reasonably ok because we let it". (When you consider social dynamics, people often choose subordination to gain protection.) You're arguing a point I haven't made.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >Now who's being a bit silly? :) If anyone could cite sources supporting such a strange position, presumably they would have by now. There's nothing strange about that position. The Japanese derive enormous benefit from the US presence. We left the Philippines when the Philippine government asked us to do so, and we'd leave Japan under the same circumstances. Do you really think we'd go to war with Japan to maintain bases there? That's preposterous. >As for the US, Okinawans want the US military off their land. So what? Okinawa isn't an independent country. >In any case, that's all besides the point. Even if your claims were 100% correct (and there's areas I agree with), the point still stands: "It's doing reasonably ok because we let it". You're arguing a point I haven't made. We "let" Japan do things to the same extent we "let" other countries do things. The only real stick we have with the Japanese is the threat to leave and take our money and protection with us.

impendia 13y ago

> It's doing reasonably ok because we let it. That's a rather startling claim, especially since the original argument is with respect to economic rather than military power. Care to back this up?

calibraxis 13y ago
What would you like me to expand upon? I think the common-sense notion is that forms of power are interlinked. (Economics means ability to produce; military means capacity to inflict violence.) Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang discusses the problems when we try to draw artificial, ideological boundaries between politics and economics; the analysis also applies to military. (http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/ha-joon-chang-and-mariana-mazzucato-rethinking-state http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/ha-joon-chang-and-ma...) And when the economic sanctions in Iraq caused a US journalist to ask Madeline Albright, "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" we see that economics can accomplish military objectives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Albright_interview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Albright...)
- impendia 13y ago
  > What would you like me to expand upon? Suppose we immediately moved all of our military bases out of Japan. Are you predicting that the country would collapse, economically or otherwise? Is Japan otherwise dependent on us, except insofar as we are a large market for Japanese-made goods?
  - calibraxis 13y ago
    a) I did not make such a prediction. For what it's worth, Hideyoshi Kase mentioned my initial common-sense reaction: "If United States withdraws its forces from Japan, we will spend the next ten years re-arming in various ways, including acquiring nuclear weapons". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_of_Japan) b) Japan has significant weaknesses, like historic lack of natural resources. I imagine it has enormous dependences, and not just on the US. (Dunno how the recent finds of rare earth metals changes this.)

mason240 13y ago

The US worked very hard to restart the Japanese economy after WWII. To suggest that the US wants to keep them held down or "doing reasonably ok because we let it" is beyond silly. If a Japan in shambles was the goal, all the US had to do was just leave them alone after the war.

calibraxis 13y ago
You repeat the self-serving propaganda of the US as a charity. ("We spy on you to protect you!") When you say "If a Japan in shambles was the goal", that is a non-sequitur, because I explicitly said Japan is "doing reasonably ok because we let it". So being in shambles would not be the goal. This is an example of mechanically quoting arguments we're told to believe. If you'd like to learn more about post-WWII US planning, simply look up the Marshall Plan and George Kennan. If you're able to deal with dissident lit, this may inform you: (http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c11-s03.html http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c11-s03.html).
- mason240 13y ago
  "This is an example of mechanically quoting arguments we're told to believe." And that is an example of when people who know they have no argument dismiss reality because it gets in the way of what they want to believe.

tsotha 13y ago

We have military bases in Japan because the Japanese people want US military bases in Japan. It allows them to focus on their economy without worrying about their strategic situation. If they change their minds and ask us to leave, we'll leave. SO the idea Japan is doing reasonable okay "because we let it" is a bit silly. US and Japanese interests coincide, for the moment. And yes, Japan has the most powerful navy in the Far East (aside from the US navy, of course) regardless of what they call it. But that's temporary - they'll be eclipsed by China over the next decade.

calibraxis 13y ago
> If they change their minds and ask us to leave, we'll leave. Now who's being a bit silly? :) If anyone could cite sources supporting such a strange position, presumably they would have by now. Let's take another example: "The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban-American Treaty was obtained by threat of force in violation of international law." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay) Of course the US does what it wants, because it's the military superpower. We don't ask people nicely if we could invade them, nor would we respect their votes on the matter. As for Japan, Okinawans want the US military off their land. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Prefecture#U.S._military_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Prefecture#U.S._militar...) Does the US hold votes, asking them if they wish to be occupied? Do we ask which other prefecture would prefer us to occupy them? In any case, that's all besides the point. Even if your claims were 100% correct (and there's areas I agree with), the point still stands: "It's doing reasonably ok because we let it". (When you consider social dynamics, people often choose subordination to gain protection.) You're arguing a point I haven't made.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >Now who's being a bit silly? :) If anyone could cite sources supporting such a strange position, presumably they would have by now. There's nothing strange about that position. The Japanese derive enormous benefit from the US presence. We left the Philippines when the Philippine government asked us to do so, and we'd leave Japan under the same circumstances. Do you really think we'd go to war with Japan to maintain bases there? That's preposterous. >As for the US, Okinawans want the US military off their land. So what? Okinawa isn't an independent country. >In any case, that's all besides the point. Even if your claims were 100% correct (and there's areas I agree with), the point still stands: "It's doing reasonably ok because we let it". You're arguing a point I haven't made. We "let" Japan do things to the same extent we "let" other countries do things. The only real stick we have with the Japanese is the threat to leave and take our money and protection with us.