On June 26 2011 09:33 tyCe wrote: I find the general opinion of this thread absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone even think that China would take over SK or Japan? What would that even do for Chinese interests? China has never been an expansionist state even during the 1000-2000 years that it had capability of doing so. It has always been content to rule within its sphere and use its political influence to keep its neighbours peaceful with them.
I'm not saying that history would repeat itself with the new China. I just want to ask why the hell people treat China as some potentially dangerous or aggressive state. The only areas where China has tried exert dominion over are Tibet and Taiwan, both of which, are part of China's traditional territory that China wishes to or has reclaimed.
Second of all, I firmly think that having one's forces overseas in another State's territory, surrounding this "potential threat" is far, far more aggressive than anything that China has done. USA has always fought its wars on enemy territory. By definition, they have always been the aggressors. By mentality, they have always been the aggressors. Only by politics, have they been "defending the peace" like the Templars "defended the Church" in the Islamic world. Hah! Yeah, sure.
Lastly, I implore all the white Americans in this thread to actually go and ask a Japanese or Korean person (not whitewashed ones from America) how they view the US occupation of their country. The people who I have asked view it as humiliating, demeaning and aggressive. Perhaps in the case of Korea, they actually believe in a genuine threat of NK (although I have doubts about the validity of such fears anyway), but in Japan, it is only a shameful reminder of their past.
This is ridiculous. China would never support NK if they went aggressive on SK. China have been the mediators of peace in the region for a long time, and rightfully so - China is concentrated on economic growth and solving many very major internal issues like social disharmony, environmental pollution and institutional corruption. The last thing they want is a war, and the second last thing they want is to sabotage the image they have been building for themselves in the international community for the last 30 years. Only America and its allies have viewed China as an expansionist threat in the last 20 or so years.
On June 26 2011 09:33 tyCe wrote: I find the general opinion of this thread absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone even think that China would take over SK or Japan? What would that even do for Chinese interests? China has never been an expansionist state even during the 1000-2000 years that it had capability of doing so. It has always been content to rule within its sphere and use its political influence to keep its neighbours peaceful with them.
I'm not saying that history would repeat itself with the new China. I just want to ask why the hell people treat China as some potentially dangerous or aggressive state. The only areas where China has tried exert dominion over are Tibet and Taiwan, both of which, are part of China's traditional territory that China wishes to or has reclaimed.
Second of all, I firmly think that having one's forces overseas in another State's territory, surrounding this "potential threat" is far, far more aggressive than anything that China has done. USA has always fought its wars on enemy territory. By definition, they have always been the aggressors. By mentality, they have always been the aggressors. Only by politics, have they been "defending the peace" like the Templars "defended the Church" in the Islamic world. Hah! Yeah, sure.
Lastly, I implore all the white Americans in this thread to actually go and ask a Japanese or Korean person (not whitewashed ones from America) how they view the US occupation of their country. The people who I have asked view it as humiliating, demeaning and aggressive. Perhaps in the case of Korea, they actually believe in a genuine threat of NK (although I have doubts about the validity of such fears anyway), but in Japan, it is only a shameful reminder of their past.
This is ridiculous. China would never support NK if they went aggressive on SK. China have been the mediators of peace in the region for a long time, and rightfully so - China is concentrated on economic growth and solving many very major internal issues like social disharmony, environmental pollution and institutional corruption. The last thing they want is a war, and the second last thing they want is to sabotage the image they have been building for themselves in the international community for the last 30 years. Only America and its allies have viewed China as an expansionist threat in the last 20 or so years.
Absolutely ridiculous.
I can't believe I'm reading this. Your fantasy of China and its history as well as general Korean perception of the US "occupation" is just jaw-dropping.
You people forget that the Korean War is still in effect to this day. China is obligated to help NK if war were to reopen. That is the only reason U.S stays in SK. As for Japan we should help them fully recover from the Earthquake and than just leave.
China is currently in large economic growth. War costs a ton of money, so I don't think they'll even think about one until either something extreme comes up or they have peaked for a while.
However, if Japan began to militarize, I think China would politically put a ton of pressure to stop it due to the past history of Japan and China.
And my opinion on North Korea is that despite being poor as a country, I think their military is actually not as technologically primitive as some claim. One reason every other aspect of their country is devolvoing is due to that their military is probably equivalent to a country much wealthier than them.
On June 26 2011 01:32 kaisen wrote: Politically speaking, what would happen if US pulls troops out of South Korea and Japan? This is an interesting question because right now there is a huge power struggle in East Asia between china and US. At the moment, both South Korea and Japan are paying billions of dollars for US bases every year and both countries want US troops to stay. But what would happen if US completely pulls out of East Asia? China wants US gone from the region, along with their sphere of influence. US is using both South korea and Japan as buffer zone for china. Will china become sole dominant power in Asia and both South Korea and Japan fall under china's influence? Will US ever pull troops out of both SK and Japan?
Where/how are they paying for US bases in these countries?
I am stationed in Japan and I see the exact opposite. The US is essentially paying Japan to be here. Just on the island of Okinawa we have over 100,000 troops and hire over 20,000 Japanese employee's to work on base. All of these people buy goods off the local economy, not to mention about 30,000 DoD personnel living off base paying at on average about $2,500 for housing...
Keep in mind Okinawa only has about 1.1mil people as well.
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
Lol, I think it might just have been a troll
For people who actually know what they're talking about it's quite well documented fact...they are the only countries with blue water navies and decent air forces. Additionally no one mentioned super powers, there is only one super power (actually the hyper power), the US, the UK and France are simply the next strongest countries in terms of military power projection capabilities (obviously Russia and China have more men but good luck getting them anywhere).
On June 26 2011 06:27 MERLIN. wrote: I think someone posted the 3 superpowers in the globe that can actually implement any force anywhere around the globe were the United states (definatly) the UK(doubt it) and France(Are you fucking kidding? France hasnt had an intimidating military since Prussia was still a nation, and Austria was an vast empire in comparison to todays Austria.
Lol, I think it might just have been a troll
maybe the post was 90 years old
lol look it up the French Armed Forces is currently the largest army in Europe the 3rd largest army in NATO and only the US and Russia have more nukes then France. SO yeah check your facts before you start being a douche and an ignorant American and start hating on a country you know nothing about.
Well... It seems in your title is states you are from the United States, and neither I nor the other member of TL you mentioned pose the same location. He is from Australia and I am from Canada, aren't you an ignorant American and a hipocrite.
And last time I checked, the largest army per capita was Switzerland, and I think we all know something about the French attempts at being an army past the Napoleon Era. (WW1, ope fucked that, WW2, didn't even notice there involvement after being dominated so badly)
Good thing that I, being opposite of the ignorant hipocritical American, has video proof of the effective French army.
Enjoy : D
Where did you see anything about largest army per capita? He simply meant largest army by size and he is correct, the French military is regarded as either the 2nd or 3rd best in the world today.
And your history is off, France fought well in WW1 and was on the winning side, it sacrificed the most out of the western allies in that war.
AND your video is the freaking Canadian army, jesus christ.
I lol'd so hard, I guess the whole "ignorant hipocritical" statement was ironic for him
On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote: I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now.
I'm glad there are US troops in my country. They have a forward base in central Europe and they could help out should we ever be under attack from France again.
Edit: Also to whoever said this nonsense about Tibet belonging to China in any kind of way: You are completely wrong. Any claims China makes on Tibet are unjustified.
On June 26 2011 09:33 tyCe wrote: I find the general opinion of this thread absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone even think that China would take over SK or Japan? What would that even do for Chinese interests? China has never been an expansionist state even during the 1000-2000 years that it had capability of doing so. It has always been content to rule within its sphere and use its political influence to keep its neighbours peaceful with them.
I'm not saying that history would repeat itself with the new China. I just want to ask why the hell people treat China as some potentially dangerous or aggressive state. The only areas where China has tried exert dominion over are Tibet and Taiwan, both of which, are part of China's traditional territory that China wishes to or has reclaimed.
Second of all, I firmly think that having one's forces overseas in another State's territory, surrounding this "potential threat" is far, far more aggressive than anything that China has done. USA has always fought its wars on enemy territory. By definition, they have always been the aggressors. By mentality, they have always been the aggressors. Only by politics, have they been "defending the peace" like the Templars "defended the Church" in the Islamic world. Hah! Yeah, sure.
Lastly, I implore all the white Americans in this thread to actually go and ask a Japanese or Korean person (not whitewashed ones from America) how they view the US occupation of their country. The people who I have asked view it as humiliating, demeaning and aggressive. Perhaps in the case of Korea, they actually believe in a genuine threat of NK (although I have doubts about the validity of such fears anyway), but in Japan, it is only a shameful reminder of their past.
This is ridiculous. China would never support NK if they went aggressive on SK. China have been the mediators of peace in the region for a long time, and rightfully so - China is concentrated on economic growth and solving many very major internal issues like social disharmony, environmental pollution and institutional corruption. The last thing they want is a war, and the second last thing they want is to sabotage the image they have been building for themselves in the international community for the last 30 years. Only America and its allies have viewed China as an expansionist threat in the last 20 or so years.
Absolutely ridiculous.
I can't believe I'm reading this. Your fantasy of China and its history as well as general Korean perception of the US "occupation" is just jaw-dropping.
Financial aspects aside i don't mind it at all having US bases in Germany. I never heard anyone consider them as occupying forces. Even after WW2 when they truly were, they were often viewed as 'friends' in the general populace. After all they allowed Germany to recover from WWII against their allies will and their intervention in WWII prevented the Soviets from taking over Germany.
Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics.
On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote: If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific.
Japan can not return to its once prior status as part of the conditions of surrender in the Postdam Declaration Article 9. By law their "Defense Force" is only supposed to be that.
On SK, I think the US would be putting SK in a very bad spot if they pulled out, its really just out of the question.
As far as the US and china are concerned we are living in a MAD world (mutually assured destruction) with the US owning the far superior arsenal (not that it really matters). So having a buffer region for defense against China is kind of silly. I sincerely hope at the age of wars between super powers is over, ww2 was horrific enough and that was before they invented the pocket calculator, think about what havok we could reap on each other today?
On June 26 2011 11:42 SouthWales wrote: As far as the US and china are concerned we are living in a MAD world (mutually assured destruction) with the US owning the far superior arsenal (not that it really matters). So having a buffer region for defense against China is kind of silly. I sincerely hope at the age of wars between super powers is over, ww2 was horrific enough and that was before they invented the pocket calculator, think about what havok we could reap on each other today?
On June 26 2011 09:33 tyCe wrote: I find the general opinion of this thread absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone even think that China would take over SK or Japan? What would that even do for Chinese interests? China has never been an expansionist state even during the 1000-2000 years that it had capability of doing so. It has always been content to rule within its sphere and use its political influence to keep its neighbours peaceful with them.
I'm not saying that history would repeat itself with the new China. I just want to ask why the hell people treat China as some potentially dangerous or aggressive state. The only areas where China has tried exert dominion over are Tibet and Taiwan, both of which, are part of China's traditional territory that China wishes to or has reclaimed.
Second of all, I firmly think that having one's forces overseas in another State's territory, surrounding this "potential threat" is far, far more aggressive than anything that China has done. USA has always fought its wars on enemy territory. By definition, they have always been the aggressors. By mentality, they have always been the aggressors. Only by politics, have they been "defending the peace" like the Templars "defended the Church" in the Islamic world. Hah! Yeah, sure.
Lastly, I implore all the white Americans in this thread to actually go and ask a Japanese or Korean person (not whitewashed ones from America) how they view the US occupation of their country. The people who I have asked view it as humiliating, demeaning and aggressive. Perhaps in the case of Korea, they actually believe in a genuine threat of NK (although I have doubts about the validity of such fears anyway), but in Japan, it is only a shameful reminder of their past.
This is ridiculous. China would never support NK if they went aggressive on SK. China have been the mediators of peace in the region for a long time, and rightfully so - China is concentrated on economic growth and solving many very major internal issues like social disharmony, environmental pollution and institutional corruption. The last thing they want is a war, and the second last thing they want is to sabotage the image they have been building for themselves in the international community for the last 30 years. Only America and its allies have viewed China as an expansionist threat in the last 20 or so years.
Absolutely ridiculous.
I've lived in Japan for 3 years and all the Japanese I've talked to like having us here. The only exceptions would be the people who knew/were victims of some crime (theft/rape etc.) that an American did...
At least as far as the 100ish people I've spoken with go.
It really is pointless to sit here and discuss this because honestly we don't even know half the story and the business and economics that back every geo-political decision that the top policy makers of nations make. I work for the government with a medium level security clearance and I can't go much further into that but there's information that I get that some of the public has no idea about or maybe know very little about. There are my superiors who know much more and make the decisions they make for classified reasons.
I won't lie and say that many of you have valid points but it's really impossible to outline why the United States should be in Japan or South Korea with the simple public knowledge we have. It's obvious that we think it's because of the looming threat that North Korea poses to the region but it has a lot to do with China. The United States keeps its bases there as a foothold on the East Asian region. The US's regional control is through South Korea and Japan and it works for the US to balance against China. The US views East Asia through a realism lens which involves balancing against nations like China by creating a bandwagon with nations like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.
I read one post here trying to debunk the fact that China is trying to consolidate regional power in the East Asia region and I must say that post was simply naivete and "for a lack of a better word" stupid. China exerts its force on Taiwan and Tibet because it believes these states are still part of the old China. China also is in constant debate with India over mountain territories which is just a microcosm of the real struggle for super-population prowess in the region. Then there is the link between China and Iran in which China is still providing Iran with natural resources and possible other resources. This relationship serves China as a means to balancing against the embargoes and sanctions that have been placed on Iran by the United States. China also trades with the Janjuweed of Sudan who has sparked genocide in Darfur and mass-displacement of people in the nation of Sudan and its neighbors. There are many other examples of China's aggressive policy including its role in the 6-party talks with North Korea and its impassivity and indecisiveness.
You all fail to realize that the world is a complicated multi-dimensional game of Risk and Civilization combined. China needs to balance the scale with the United States and the United States needs to do the same against China while trying to trade with each other and such. If the United States left the East Asian region, China's dominance would be further advanced and progressed without much hindrance let alone the looming aggressive threat of North Korea. The US's presence in the East Asian region is essential for the United States and would be worse than better for the United States to leave.
On June 26 2011 11:36 white_horse wrote: Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics.
Expansionist? What territory has China annexed since the establishment of PROC? Tibet cannot be considered a aggressive or expansionist movement since its basically a internal issue that USA wants to poke its nose in. The south china sea issue has been disputed for a long time now, its hardly anything new. Last I check they haven't fire a shot at any of the southern asia countries, just a bunch of old asian man bitching at each other.
Compared to the USA track record recently, what china is doing is laughable. Current world politics is basically either pro-USA or pro-China. The neutral countries are either in a pile of shit themselves or completely irrelevant on the world scene. Too many people here in the USA needs to find out information from both sides instead of reading news propaganda from only one side.
Didn't the Japanese premier/president get a lot of heat recently for failing to hold up his promise regarding moving the Okinawa base? Seems like a clear example of a portion of the Japanese people wanting the base removed or relocated at least.
In the end, until the Japanese people or Korean people come together as a whole and demand the USA to leave, those base will always be there. The cost will not matter based on the current track records of US spending. Even in a huge debt crisis, the government continues to pursue multiple military operation around the world. No matter the believe from either side, money is being spend and it will continue to be spend.
If they pulled out of Japan and SK they would probably strengthen the rest of their alliances with SEA and Australia. Jp and Sk are strong enough to look after themselves and dont really consider themselves allied with America. They are independent enough to put their own interests ahead of USA's when it comes to politics. Whereas Australians welcome any idea of being more close with America to the point where it is sickening.
Either way its not going to make much of a difference, USA doesnt really do much in that region anyways and they will always have Taiwan for a friend.
EPT
