CUSMA rolls off the tongue better that’s for sure. Hopefully it becomes the accepted nomenclature. Canada receiving top billing would be the perfect cherry on top of this stupid sundae.
I think there's something in Canadian law (or at least procedure) that when listing countries Canada always goes first.
So apparently there's 3 versions of the name for this thing, since of course Mexico can't be left out.
MCUSA, yo!
Does anyone read that hearing Reiner Wolfcastle yelling "Mendoza!"? Or is it just me?
Dunno man, which China and NK on the back door I would also want some nukes, specially after the incident earlier on the year.
I don't know specifically what you're referring to, and I personally don't disagree with you, but last I checked, the Japanese public are still decisively against having nuclear weapons. But I don't know enough to second-guess that polling result, so it might be a flimsy opposition that could be undermined by specific circumstances or whatever.
I think that, in his heart, Abe probably is a genuine militarist. He's the scion of the branch of Japanese conservatives that the LDP leadership kicked to the curb in 1960 in favor of safer, more economy-centered conservatives. But it doesn't really matter. He's heavily constrained by other Japanese leaders and popular opinion and the minor changes he's able to implement on security issues still leave the JSDF as the most constrained military outside of, I don't know, Costa Rica.
Yes, sorry, to be clear, I'm not really talking about Abe personally. I don't follow Japanese politics closely enough to really say much about what Abe would be like if he were unconstrained by politics. He might be a horrible person who kicks kittens in his spare time, but I wouldn't know.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
You're right, we should have abandoned the Islanders to the tender mercies of a viciously murderous fascist regime that disappeared tens of thousands of its own people.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
So It Goes on
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
We've had this discussion in the past, but the actual claim by argentina was incredibly nebulous given the fact that (amongst other things) britain had firmly established their claim to the islands before Argentina was an independant nation.
So It Goes on
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Dunno man, which China and NK on the back door I would also want some nukes, specially after the incident earlier on the year.
The japanese have a complicated relationship with nuclear weapons, due to losing two whole cities to them.
Hippofant gave a great summary but I think it is important to note the reason why Japan has no official military. It is because after WW2 they weren't allowed to have one (much like Germany). They were occupied for some years by the US, and that occupation ended partly with promises that Japan wouldn't claim real military rights and the US would make sure they didn't need to. The US for their part wanted (needed) the troops there for the Korean war, war being great I suppose, but kept most bases. The Japanese military has grown to be basically like any other competent military, but there is still reluctance towards changing things officially.
Much like with Germany, the attitude towards armies and weapons in Japan is heavily tied to WW2. It might look a little strange from an US or victor perspective, but that's how it is. (I would note though the stance from a country in the region towards China and NK. Perhaps they have a more accurate understanding of the relations in that region.)
Dunno man, which China and NK on the back door I would also want some nukes, specially after the incident earlier on the year.
The japanese have a complicated relationship with nuclear weapons, due to losing two whole cities to them.
Hippofant gave a great summary but I think it is important to note the reason why Japan has no official military. It is because after WW2 they weren't allowed to have one (much like Germany). They were occupied for some years by the US, and that occupation ended partly with promises that Japan wouldn't claim real military rights and the US would make sure they didn't need to. The US for their part wanted (needed) the troops there for the Korean war, war being great I suppose, but kept most bases. The Japanese military has grown to be basically like any other competent military, but there is still reluctance towards changing things officially.
Much like with Germany, the attitude towards armies and weapons in Japan is heavily tied to WW2. It might look a little strange from an US or victor perspective, but that's how it is. (I would note though the stance from a country in the region towards China and NK. Perhaps they have a more accurate understanding of the relations in that region.)
Japan was a brutally colonialist power, and the specter of their return in that form is a major source of propaganda and right wing support in North Korea, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and several other Asian powers. Abe's pushing to make Japan a regional military power with the ability to project force abroad is a source of regional tension for symbolic reasons alone.
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
We've had this discussion in the past, but the actual claim by argentina was incredibly nebulous given the fact that (amongst other things) britain had firmly established their claim to the islands before Argentina was an independant nation.
Yeah but nobody argues that the islands should be ruled jointly by Spain and the UK, so how much weight should be given to that?
like, Britain fully abandoned the island and then Spain did too and then a couple years later Argentine claimed it for their own. Given that we can naturally reject the kind of straight colonialist claims to territory*, I would argue that the country to establish the current period of rule has a strong claim to the territory. I wouldn't call leaving a plaque saying this whole thing is totally yours a firmly established claim.
i mean, I reject all these claims and think currently the islands should be British solely because of the right to self determination. But I understand how silly and unsatisfying that ultimately is. Then again the whole conflict is about a couple of islands which don't matter so whatever.
*seriously, nebulous? Isn't the whole bit where one lands on an island and then declares complete ownerhips itself silly? Or dumb as shit?
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
The strength of the claim is irrelevant. It wasn't worth fighting a war over. About 1,000 people died. Not a big war, but considering only about 3,000 people live there...
(Most of the casualties were armed forces, by the way, lest anyone think 1/3 of the islands were wiped out)
That's what I mean about "petulant martyr syndrome." Everyone always gets on their high horse and all rationality disappears.
The British were just feeling bad about the last shreds of empire slipping away.
Legitimate claim or not the UK chose to fight a war they didnt need to over an island they didnt care about and had no use for. Thats fairly abhorrent.
Legitimate claim or not the UK chose to fight a war they didnt need to over an island they didnt care about and had no use for. Thats fairly abhorrent.
Really? 3000 of your citizens had basically been captured by a regime that regularly tortured and disappeared problematic "enemies of the state". The Argentinian Junta didn't invade over some claim from back in 1820, they invaded to shore up their domestic support. They more than the UK chose the war.
So It Goes on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Legitimate claim or not the UK chose to fight a war they didnt need to over an island they didnt care about and had no use for. Thats fairly abhorrent.
Those 3000 people who lived there were British, and the UK didn't start it - the military dictatorship did. Argentina had less claim over the people living there than Russia had over Crimea.
Legitimate claim or not the UK chose to fight a war they didnt need to over an island they didnt care about and had no use for. Thats fairly abhorrent.
Really? 3000 of your citizens had basically been captured
Legitimate claim or not the UK chose to fight a war they didnt need to over an island they didnt care about and had no use for. Thats fairly abhorrent.
Those 3000 people who lived there were British, and the UK didn't start it - the military dictatorship did. Argentina had less claim over the people living there than Russia had over Crimea.
The Falkland inhabitants weren't full British citizens at the time. (and most overseas territory peeps remained so for years.)
I think it's fair to say the UK didn't really care about the islands beforehand. And while there were also legitimate concerns, a lot of the response, especially from Thatcher and the Tories, seemed to be about properly owning that territory and keeping hold of the glory days.
They cared a lot during the exploration of the Antarctic, and when circumnavigating the globe. Plus we didn't really care about Northern Ireland recently until Brexit happened - there's a lot of places that don't feature heavily in people's (Tories & Londoners') minds until a hostile force threatens them.
How big a thing was Guam to the US until the whole Nuclear North Korea thing happened. Just a place to put a base before that.
Tastyfish on
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Plus we didn't really care about Northern Ireland recently until Brexit happened
...uh yeah the UK also has no legitimate claim to Northern Ireland. (though I realize the political and human rights problem of inhabitants wanting to be part of the UK here too.)
my point is not actually that only this one case is a problem.
BUENOS AIRES — The United States and China called a truce in their trade war on Saturday after President Trump agreed to hold off on new tariffs and President Xi Jinping pledged to increase Chinese purchases of American products. The two also set the stage for more painstaking negotiations to resolve deeply rooted differences over trade.
In a significant concession, Mr. Trump will postpone a plan to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25 percent, from 10 percent, on Jan. 1. The Chinese agreed to an unspecified increase in their purchases of American industrial, energy and agricultural products, which Beijing hit with retaliatory tariffs after Mr. Trump targeted everything from steel to consumer electronics.
The countries set an ambitious deadline of 90 days to reach a broader trade agreement, with the White House warning that if they did not come to terms by then, Mr. Trump would raise the existing tariff rate to 25 percent.
Posts
"What did you write for your answer? I don't know what to put." - Trump
"You only have to sign your name, Donald." - Pena Nieto
Not to say their acknowledgement is perfect, but they aren't, say, neoconfederates, either.
I don't know specifically what you're referring to, and I personally don't disagree with you, but last I checked, the Japanese public are still decisively against having nuclear weapons. But I don't know enough to second-guess that polling result, so it might be a flimsy opposition that could be undermined by specific circumstances or whatever.
Yes, sorry, to be clear, I'm not really talking about Abe personally. I don't follow Japanese politics closely enough to really say much about what Abe would be like if he were unconstrained by politics. He might be a horrible person who kicks kittens in his spare time, but I wouldn't know.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
From the comments: You can hear him say, "Get me out of here," at 00:16.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
OMG, the look on the Argentinian president's face. The laughter from the crowd.
This really is like GWB: Extreme Edition. He's a joke to them all.
I find his turn away from the crowd very interesting. I'm trying to peer deeply into his body language to understand what is motivating it.
I'll also admit that I don't really know what Trump was supposed to do. I guess NOT walk off, but why? More pictures?
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Am I right in saying his replacement would be a Navak officer’s promotion rather than someone Trump or the Senate appoints?
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
You're right, we should have abandoned the Islanders to the tender mercies of a viciously murderous fascist regime that disappeared tens of thousands of its own people.
Well, there was that whole famine in India that killed 3 million people that Churchill shrugged off.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
We've had this discussion in the past, but the actual claim by argentina was incredibly nebulous given the fact that (amongst other things) britain had firmly established their claim to the islands before Argentina was an independant nation.
The japanese have a complicated relationship with nuclear weapons, due to losing two whole cities to them.
Hippofant gave a great summary but I think it is important to note the reason why Japan has no official military. It is because after WW2 they weren't allowed to have one (much like Germany). They were occupied for some years by the US, and that occupation ended partly with promises that Japan wouldn't claim real military rights and the US would make sure they didn't need to. The US for their part wanted (needed) the troops there for the Korean war, war being great I suppose, but kept most bases. The Japanese military has grown to be basically like any other competent military, but there is still reluctance towards changing things officially.
Much like with Germany, the attitude towards armies and weapons in Japan is heavily tied to WW2. It might look a little strange from an US or victor perspective, but that's how it is. (I would note though the stance from a country in the region towards China and NK. Perhaps they have a more accurate understanding of the relations in that region.)
Japan was a brutally colonialist power, and the specter of their return in that form is a major source of propaganda and right wing support in North Korea, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and several other Asian powers. Abe's pushing to make Japan a regional military power with the ability to project force abroad is a source of regional tension for symbolic reasons alone.
Yeah but nobody argues that the islands should be ruled jointly by Spain and the UK, so how much weight should be given to that?
like, Britain fully abandoned the island and then Spain did too and then a couple years later Argentine claimed it for their own. Given that we can naturally reject the kind of straight colonialist claims to territory*, I would argue that the country to establish the current period of rule has a strong claim to the territory. I wouldn't call leaving a plaque saying this whole thing is totally yours a firmly established claim.
i mean, I reject all these claims and think currently the islands should be British solely because of the right to self determination. But I understand how silly and unsatisfying that ultimately is. Then again the whole conflict is about a couple of islands which don't matter so whatever.
*seriously, nebulous? Isn't the whole bit where one lands on an island and then declares complete ownerhips itself silly? Or dumb as shit?
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
(Most of the casualties were armed forces, by the way, lest anyone think 1/3 of the islands were wiped out)
That's what I mean about "petulant martyr syndrome." Everyone always gets on their high horse and all rationality disappears.
The British were just feeling bad about the last shreds of empire slipping away.
Really? 3000 of your citizens had basically been captured by a regime that regularly tortured and disappeared problematic "enemies of the state". The Argentinian Junta didn't invade over some claim from back in 1820, they invaded to shore up their domestic support. They more than the UK chose the war.
Those 3000 people who lived there were British, and the UK didn't start it - the military dictatorship did. Argentina had less claim over the people living there than Russia had over Crimea.
The Falkland inhabitants weren't full British citizens at the time.
I think it's fair to say the UK didn't really care about the islands beforehand. And while there were also legitimate concerns, a lot of the response, especially from Thatcher and the Tories, seemed to be about properly owning that territory and keeping hold of the glory days.
How big a thing was Guam to the US until the whole Nuclear North Korea thing happened. Just a place to put a base before that.
...uh yeah the UK also has no legitimate claim to Northern Ireland. (though I realize the political and human rights problem of inhabitants wanting to be part of the UK here too.)
my point is not actually that only this one case is a problem.
Current US foreign policy.
Geth, open the thread.